PLAAF Breaking News (including articles with Pictures or videos)

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by Jeff Head, Mar 12, 2015.

  1. Xsizor
    Offline

    Xsizor Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2019
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    195
    I'm inclined to believe that twin engined medium weight fighters would be better for carrier operations than heavy weight ones. I only have my probably flawed logic of bigger jets being more susceptible towards structural failures than smaller ones due to the landing operations atop the deck.
     
  2. manqiangrexue
    Online

    manqiangrexue Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,117
    Likes Received:
    6,792
    Smaller jets --> Fit more onto the carrier, easier to move around the carrier, easier to land, smaller RCS given same design
    Larger jets --> Higher range, carries more missiles, bigger missiles (as long as catapult is powerful enough)

    If you ask me to choose one, I prefer bigger jets because in naval warfare, greater range means you can start launching strikes against someone before they can launch at you, and greater payload means bigger, badder anti-ship missiles can be carried. More smaller jets kinda makes your carrier very good at unleashing a swarm to defend itself but carriers aren't really meant to be defensive weapons anyway. But on larger carriers, it's possible to carry a mix so you have offense squad and defense squad.
     
    bruceb1959 and Yodello like this.
  3. Xsizor
    Offline

    Xsizor Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2019
    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    195
    Then why didn't USA consider a heavy weight fighter for its navy? Why didn't Russia continue producing Su-33? USA chose SuperHornet and Russia settled for Mig29K. The french has the Rafale-M. All of these are medium weight twin engined fighters. Don't you think it is a big risk for China to go off the beaten path ? Also, BVR fights are determined by better radars so lack of range can be covered by improved engine efficiency, better radar and longer range AA missiles.
     
  4. SinoSoldier
    Online

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    6,781
    According to some statements made by "PUPU" recently, which are in the FC-31 thread, the FC-31 is being heavily redesigned into a new fighter called the J-35.

    Su-57 and FC-31 occupy different fighter niches. You can't interchange the two without having to rewrite your doctrine or their operational roles.
     
    DGBJCLAU and N00813 like this.
  5. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    3,367
    Because by the time the Tomcat retired better engines meant the US could get a compromise between a smaller fighter and higher range + payload, which is how they arrived at the Super Hornet. There really is no one right answer to this. It depends on what your carrier doctrine is, and that can always change over time.
     
  6. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,017
    Likes Received:
    11,965
    There are still bitter regrets within the USN at the early forced retirement of the Tomcat and lack of an equivalent replacement.

    The Russians went for the Mig29K because the Indians already paid for the development costs, whereas they would have had a pay for the development of a modernised Su33.

    In addition, both the US and Europeans pretty much take air superiority as a given, whereas the PLAN expects to have to fight hard to gain that.

    That is why the former are focused more on efficiency, whereas the latter finds raw capabilities more important.

    The USN’s choice of the F35 is largely based on a assumption that they would not be facing hostile 5th gene in the Raptor class well into the latter life of the F35, if ever, by which point a far more capable US next gen fighter would already be flying in numbers.

    Had the USN planners knew that they would be facing something like the J20 as early as they are, then I dare say they might have insisted on something a little bigger and with more kinetic capabilities.

    The PLAN’s calculations are pretty straight forwards really.

    Even within the Pacific itself, the PLAN carrier fleet is unlikely to be able to match, never mind outnumbered the USN in terms of carriers and carrier aircraft deployable.

    When you cannot avoid a numerical advantage, the most obvious alternative strategy is to aim for a qualitative advanage. That is something the J31 is unlikely to offer against the F35.

    That is why I have always favoured a carrier fighter based on the J20.
     
  7. latenlazy
    Offline

    latenlazy Colonel

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,234
    Likes Received:
    3,367
    Numbers are their own quality. Little point having greater quality if you lose by attrition.
     
    siegecrossbow likes this.
  8. SinoSoldier
    Online

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,063
    Likes Received:
    6,781
    Advantages of a J-20-based carrier fighter:
    - Longer range
    - Larger weapons load

    Advantages of a FC-31-based carrier fighter:
    - Less deck space
    - Likely less expensive
    - Less development/testing time
    - More seasoned aircraft manufacturer (for naval jets)
    - Lighter, allowing full use of catapult or even STOBAR operations
     
    Xsizor, siegecrossbow and N00813 like this.
  9. gelgoog
    Offline

    gelgoog Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    1,334
    I doubt the FC-31 will be much cheaper. Simply because it will be dual engine.
    Perhaps 25% cheaper or perhaps not at all. Especially when you consider the production numbers might turn out to be a lot lower.
     
  10. siegecrossbow
    Offline

    siegecrossbow Brigadier
    Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,953
    Likes Received:
    8,179
    Let's wrap up the naval fighter discussions and return to topic, shall we?
     
Loading...

Share This Page