But these stealthy platforms have an abysmally small payload and shorter reach than J-15. J-15 won't fare much worse than a couple of J-31s if those billions are spent on other things that can potentially turn the tide. Spending all those resources on getting J-31 means PLAN definitely won't match USN whereas forgoing J-31 means the possibility of creating a more effective way of countering the proliferation of F-35s around China.
J-15 carrier-borne fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
But these stealthy platforms have an abysmally small payload and shorter reach than J-15. J-15 won't fare much worse than a couple of J-31s if those billions are spent on other things that can potentially turn the tide. Spending all those resources on getting J-31 means PLAN definitely won't match USN whereas forgoing J-31 means the possibility of creating a more effective way of countering the proliferation of F-35s around China.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Why would the J-15's larger payload and combat radius matter when it will not get within striking distance of an opponent's assets (which will almost definitely be guarded by its own VLO assets)? Unfortunately, we are essentially banking on the phantom prospect of anti-stealth technologies to come online (in the US and also in China) in a time frame when the FC-31, F-22, and F-35 are still relevant combatants.
Payload and radius get you within any distance to begin with, because they represent length of CSG air arm. Otherwise it's for task force to reach, which can have different consequences.
There are different ways of getting within strike distance. For example, using J-15S, which forms great synergy with baseline fighter(and has much greater potential than range-limited Rhino/Growler mix).
P.s. overall, idea is what looking at fighter V fighter is secondary. What's important is overall squadron capability with role of NAVAIR component in it.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The point of having a large payload (fuel) and radius is to increase your operating envelope and tactical flexibility. That is not going to happen when the J-15 is bound to light up every single enemy sensor like a Christmas tree; this is where VLO aircraft has a huge advantage even though the latter might not carry the same amount of fuel or ordnance the former does.
Well, if aircraft really wants to hide - it can use earth curvature or terrain. There are obvious limitations, but it's the most reliable form of stealth.
But the point is different here. As stealthy as aircraft are - CSG isn't. Critical air assets(AEW, Refuel) are visible as well.
It isn't what stealth is worthless - it's the opposite, any new combat aircraft shall take signature reduction as a must. But for overall carrier warfare its importance is somewhat lower for a carrierborne fighter, compared to air force.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
I'm not sure where you get the notion that "stealth" is less important for a carrier air wing than it is for a land-based air force; the latter are frequently forced to operate alone without much surface support or ECM escorts. And regardless of which platform the aircraft operates from, having the ability to penetrate enemy radar to some extent, and thus extending its reach, all the while retaining network centric warfare abilities, can be the difference between success and defeat in a high-tech high-intensity conflict.
For a carrier fighter, yes. Because mission and tasks form aircraft.
It isn't like stealth is unnecessary - no, it is necessary. But only after success of other tasks is assured. There is no point in being more stealthy(sacrificing some other specs) when your carrier is sunk.
Especially so since carrier is an irreplaceable asset.
j-15, by virtue of being descendant of su-27 family, is an extremely capable loitering interceptor by birth. It really matters.
If fighter is expected to perform strikes as it's primary role - it definitely require as much stealth as possible, but FC-31 isn't something you'd like to be your primary strike asset.
P.s. Main capabilities of strike carrier combat aircraft are(in order of importance)
1)long range strike. In a carrier-centered fleet it's your "reach", and what makes your fleet this capable of bringing harm to your enemy. Requires as much stealth as possible, as much range as possible and as much payload as possible.
2)fleet air defence. Because it's something allowing your fleet to operate beyond land air umbrella. Strictly speaking, it is even more vital than strike(because fleet is composed of ships. No ships afloat - no fleet, period), but it's defensive, so placed on a second place.
3)air superiority. Air superiority mission for carrier aviation is different. You don't clean airspace for the sake of airspace, making air over empty water(where every ship is mobile) yours won't do you too much. Main form of air superiority mission thus is a bomber escort mission.
There is obviously more in this, say, naval fighters can just as well perform overland airsuperiority sweeps, as well as patrol empty water against unwelcome intrusions(say, MPA), but these are of tertiary importance.
Same as, for example, carrier light strike(mission which gave birth to F/A-18 hornet).
It's very useful and important, actually typically more useful than 3 mentioned above. But still it is secondary, if there is any enemy capable of denying your operations.
There are others, with some of them being at least as important, but they are out of scope of this post.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
It depends on what you are trading off to get that kind of stealthiness. If the fighter in question has to sacrifice range, payload and maneuverability/speed then I would say that the trade is not worth it.
That is the kind of problem that is plaguing the F-35 atm, everything is being served up on a silver platter for the sake of "stealth" and "commonality".
Nor is stealth a silver bullet for all situations, in cases which stealth fails or counts for less then the plane will have to rely on other strengths available.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
The notion that the stealthy platforms are unnecessary because the CBG somehow needs to focus on its "primary objective" makes no sense; its VLO profile is what helps achieve those objectives and frees up other assets to do their own thing. Having a mixed FC-31 and J-15 fleet allows the latter to be delegated to jobs that they're likely to survive, unlike a pure J-15 one. And let's get this straight; the air wing of an aircraft carrier is to carry out what carriers do: bring tactical airpower to where there is no land-based air base. CAP is critical, for sure, but it is not the primary objective of having aircraft carriers. There is a reason why the PLANAF (e.g. Liaoning) is one of the first branches of the PLA to receive strike-capable indigenous Flankers. Aircraft carriers are a critical tool to launch strikes far away from your homeports and history has shown that.
@Viktor,
The F-35's main issues, at least according to professional opinion, is that the airframe is being forced to adopt the prospect of being built into three different variants (but with one single common central airframe piece). There hasn't been any indication that attempts to make it stealthy has been detracting from the quality or capabilities of the fighter. And you make it seem as if stealth "failing/succeeding" is a black-and-white thing; even if the VLO aspect is compromised to some extent, the aircraft will still likely have a lower signature than conventional legacy airframes - in any case this is hardly a reason to forgo stealth design.
Which one? If you want FC-31 to be what original Hornet meant to be for a F-14, then ok, but there is a question of space. Chinese CSGs still don't have AEW and Electronic attack detachments, which are known to be in development. After their addition, current carriers are unlikely to be able to fit in viable mixed wing.
For hypothetical future CVN-sized carriers - it may work, but there is so much time what better plane can be developed. Based on fc-31 heritage, if necessary.
Exactly, I agree with you. Problem is, FC-31 is bad primary strike asset, because it's set of qualities is just wrong.
Furthermore, between supercarrier and Liaoning-sized carrier, the second one is notoriously lacking in "punch", much less so in a defensive capability.
PLAN may follow American doctrine, but design limitations are still here.
Strike arm of Soviet CSG was meant to be different, and ship can generate just as many sorties as it was meant to 40 yrs ago.
Basically, wait for "002" at least.