Equation
Lieutenant General
Who knows by that time the Liaoning and Shandong could become large LHD or drone ships after their days as a fix wing aircraft carriers are over.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Those plans are for a 6th gen in the early 2030's not a new fifth gen. the Navy will upgrade it's Super hornets to the XT configuration. Which is more of a 4.75 gen. improved sensors conformal tanks decreased RCS external weapons pod
[/quote]
I think many of the demands facing the USN's carrier airwing of the future will be ones that China's future carriers will face too.
So if the Navy really is leaning towards a J-20 variant rather than FC-31, I would approve of such a decision so long as the J-20 variant is able to carry some sort of stand off strike weapon like JSM.
The range/endurance of a naval J-20 would be the primary benefit over a naval FC-31 imo.[/QUOTE]
Size is an issue smaller fighters take up less room, And J20 is bigger then FC31.
The CSBA proposal doesn't explicitly talk about a 6th generation fighter, more just a "new" air to air stealth fighter. I'm aware of FA-XX of course, whcih is supposedly meant to be a 6th generation fighter but I don't think the CSBA proposal depicts such a 6th generation aircraft.
You really haven't kept up with the course of the conversation, it may be worth it for you to read some of the subsequent posts that I've made about the issue of greater range vs greater number of fighters.
It's not as simple as "smaller fighters take up less room = more fighters; more fighters = good; therefore smaller fighters = good".
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The point of an Aircraft carrier is you don't need as much range. you brought the Air base with you. Land based Fighters need Range in the offencive but with a Carrier you have a moving airbase. you park it where you want it and operate from there.
... can you really think of no good reasons for why increased range and endurance may be of interest for a carrier's airwing?
That *really* depends on the capabilities you need to fulfill your carrier's mission profile. Depending on the situation, longer legs away from your carrier could prove to be essential.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I can see want of Range but I am also considering the size of the known PLAN carriers.
I don't see why one would need to operate across the whole of the pacific IF you can move where you need and why you would want only a handful if you can load out more.
I don't see why one would need to operate across the whole of the pacific IF you can move where you need and why you would want only a handful if you can load out more.
Your fighters are much faster than your carrier. The closer your carrier has to be to fulfill its mission the more vulnerable it is to an opposing naval defenses.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Depends on what you consider as "long term" in relation to other fighter procurement. The F-35 would be around for at least a couple of decades or more until a notional F/A-XX is put into service. Not sure how Russians plan for the future of their carrier fleets but the rumors range from a naval variant of the T-50 to the lightweight LMFS.
A naval modification to either platform would warrant putting the airframes into flight testing all over again, so I doubt that the J-20's "head start" per se would confer it an advantage during the developmental phase. I'd also mention that the evolution per prototype is far greater on the FC-31 than it is for the J-20 (i.e. the upgrades between flying prototypes are made in far greater increments in the FC-31 program than for the J-20 program).
I'd harbor doubts about its A2G prospect until the J-20 actually goes A2G weapons integration (we have seen none thus far). The FC-31 probably hasn't undergone weapons integration but at least the program shows intent to give it A2G capabilities.
It's not up to anyone (myself included) to decide whether such a decision would be "reasonable" or not; that is why you have military committees to do that. It doesn't take much to see that the PLAN is going against the flow in this aspect of naval aviation.
Of course, that is assuming that rumors are accurate and that the J-20 is indeed being preferred over the FC-31 (many pieces of evidence/clues imply otherwise).
I think we need to review some exhibitions from Zhuhai 2016:
The FC-31 could carry 4 500-kg bombs or 4 supersonic ASMs in its internal bays. I never insinuated that it could carry YJ-83-class missiles in its bay, although the 4 ASMs could easily be substituted by a lightweight anti-ship weapon.
Now this right here is a smart young man! He is the USN, he knows their think inside and out, cause he is an insider, we are very blessed on the Sino Defense Forum to have two USN veterans who are real thinkers and real gentlemen..
Thanks Kwai for your insight,,, I always stop to read your posts as well as BD's, and throw our buddy Jeff Head in because he is a Navy Brat, and followed in his own Father's footsteps to become an engineer, and a friend and admirer of the Chinese people in particular, We could go on and on from Deino, TPHuang, and to each of you, we have been blessed with perspective.
So great discussion on a real "forum" gents, nice to hear opposing/complimentary views and hear some of your reasoning behind your opinions, keep up the good work gents, and I appreciate your passionate, yet gentlemanly tone..... thumbs up!
I wish the Navy had followed with a Naval version of the F-22, it would have been a real "Wildcat"!
- Status