Shenyang J-31 Fighter

I agree about basing of J-20, but the two operational Chengdu airbases, Taipingsi (30 36 00 N 104 00 48 E) and Fenghuanshan (30 43 56 N 104 05 52 E) are used by transports and army aviation, respectively.

A plausible candidate might be Dazu (29 38 10 N 105 46 25 E).

Originally Posted by plawolf

Western publications are absolutely worthless when it comes to reporting on Chinese military developments on the whole because they don't have the contacts (or any contacts for the vast majority of cases).

The only exceptions are the pieces they run on the PAF when they actually bother to do some real journalism and interview people in the know who actually have access to hard data and real equipment. Thise articles and the few times when a Chinese designer actually gives an interview to a western publication are the only times their articles are even worth the time and effort to read.

Every other piece those publications put out on the Chinese military are without exception pure trash. Those articles are just a highly selective repeat of forum posts that the author liked or flippant sound bites from people who might know a thing or two about the western defense establishment, but who are completely out of their depths when it comes to China.

The bulk of what these people say, and the articles that use them as 'experts' are just quota filling pieces written because people want to know and the publications feel they need to cover China rather than because they have anything worth while to say about China. It's completely backwards jurnaulism, and that's why it's so terrible.

Now Wolfie, aren't most aviation rags western? I think the good old Air Force Magazine has done a commendable job of reporting on everyones aircraft for a long time, and for years that was my only real source for all my info. I have read some of the propaganda pieces and really you know what I'm talking about, they make no pretense of being objective. I don't know about little miss whatsohername, but engines continue to be a hi priority, and Dr. Song himself was/is concerned about powerplants?

Taken from Chinese military aviation:




http://cnair.top81.cn/q-5_jh-7_h-6.htm#J-16

Originally Posted by cn_habs

Taken from Chinese military aviation:




Chinese Military Aviation | China Air Force

I don't think that is the mysterious plane we've been talking about...

just another Flanker variant
nothing to see here, move along

nothing but just PLAAF's most potent strike platform

2zekksy.jpg

new pic by ying1978 @CDF

frontal view makes the entire fuselage look kinda like the F-35. A very good view on the diamond cross-section of the nose too.

Originally Posted by Insignius

2zekksy.jpg

new pic by ying1978 @CDF

frontal view makes the entire fuselage look kinda like the F-35. A very good view on the diamond cross-section of the nose too.

This picture alone is going to squash all the "L-15" sayer.

Originally Posted by stardave

This picture alone is going to squash all the "L-15" sayer.

Those silly still exist?

Originally Posted by Insignius

Those silly still exist?

They mostly are not silly but delusional... That is, trying so hard to will their wishes into reality...

Originally Posted by paintgun

..........
nothing but just PLAAF's most potent strike platform

After H6K...........

Originally Posted by Engineer

Wow...it's bigger than I thought.

Originally Posted by plawolf

The J20 as it is is not suitable as a carrier fighter. Even if you do bother to make the necessary structural reinforcements and add in a completely new landing gear design, some of it's basic design choices would make it a les than ideal carrier fighter. It is too long and large for one, and the main landing gears are too far forward. Those are the sort of things that are hard if not impossible to change without it being easier to just start fresh.

In terms of size J-20 is actually shorter and more narrow than Su-33/J-15. But I agree that modifying J-20 into a carrier based aircraft would not be worth it.

Originally Posted by plawolf

If there is a war with the US, the PLAN's carriers would is all likelihood not feature. Just too many eggs in one basket and they would tie down too much of the PLAN's assets to protect even if that was possible.

The opposite is true. If there is a war with the US, every asset should be utilized. Carriers out at the sea will be much more difficult targets than carriers sitting in a naval base when poop hits the fan. The battle groups themselves can employ the same tactics that certain American forum members claimed can be effective against China's maritime strike assets -- EMCON, EW, operating in busy shipping lanes, etc. Also, keep in mind that China's carrier battle groups will not be operating by themselves, but with the support of land-based AWACS, fighters, tankers, missiles and OTH radars, thus offsetting deficiencies from the battle groups themselves. In short, the carrier battle groups will be able to tie up a lot of US assets, preventing US from gaining superiority without deploying even more assets, thus raising the cost of the conflict for the US.

Originally Posted by plawolf

I would see the carrier fighters operating from land bases while the escorts are retasked with protecting mainland installations from cruise missiles and air strikes and proving escorts for any invasion force headed for Taiwan.

They should be out at sea fighting for air dominance, without which the US cannot help Taiwan. Mainland installations can be protected by fighters on alert, and variety of anti-air defenses.

Originally Posted by plawolf

Hell, AShW is probably one of the worse ways you can use the J20, right up there with CAS. A carrier battlegroup is probably one of the best suited forces to counter stealth fighters and bombers. You have a dearth of very powerful AESA radars, both ship borne and air borne, all netoworked via high bandwidth datalinks and backed up with serious processing capacity to analysis all the sensor data with the different escorts being spaced out. You would be hard pressed to come up with a better set up to counter stealth.

Remember that stealth is as much about re-directing incoming radar energy as it is about absorption. What might work against a single radar could be a disaster against a group of them, whereby your stealth shaping ends up redirecting the radar energy from on enemy ship right smack bang into the array of another.

I don't think that works as stealth shaping tends to redirect radar energy perpendicular to the incoming direction, assuming the strike package is heading directly toward a carrier battle group. I also disagree with your opinion that a battle group is suited to counter stealth fighters. First, those radars within a battle group use bands specifically targeted by stealth technologies. In addition, unlike the situation faced by China and Russian, US has have no concern about defending against stealth technologies, meaning anti-stealth measures within the battle group remained a low priority until recently.

That being said, I don't think J-20 would be used for maritime strike. What I am trying to get across is that stealth fighter-bombers such as JH-7B or B2-class bombers used for maritime strike purposes will be effective countermeasure for US carrier battle groups.

One more pic near the tail.



---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Engineer

I

The opposite is true. If there is a war with the US, every asset should be utilized. Carriers out at the sea will be much more difficult targets than carriers sitting in a naval base when poop hits the fan. The battle groups themselves can employ the same tactics that certain American forum members claimed can be effective against China's maritime strike assets -- EMCON, EW, operating in busy shipping lanes, etc. Also, keep in mind that China's carrier battle groups will not be operating by themselves, but with the support of land-based AWACS, fighters, tankers, missiles and OTH radars, thus offsetting deficiencies from the battle groups themselves. In short, the carrier battle groups will be able to tie up a lot of US assets, preventing US from gaining superiority without deploying even more assets, thus raising the cost of the conflict for the US.

The Varyag can be used as a bait in the sense that she will reduce unknowns in the conflict for China. Though not nearly as powerful as nuclear supercarriers USN operating in the area will not be comfortable venturing further until she is eliminated. This means China would know the target of US attacks, giving her an advantage. China can even use a decoy and intentionally leak some EM intel for setting up a kill zone.