J-XY/J-35 carrier-borne fighter thread

[SinoSoldier]

I'd rather prefer that the Chinese use both J-21s and J-20s on their carrriers. You want a high-end air superiority fighter on your carrier as well as a strike fighter, which is what the J-21 is going to be. The news about the sensor suite upgrade is very promising; there is no reason the J-21 should omit EODAS except for cost.

Logistical issues may pose a problem with this plan; you would need spare parts, engines, and weaponry for aircraft in two different weight classes, although it could be done if necessary.

Whichever aircraft is ultimately selected, hopefully China's carrier-borne fighter mix over the next 15 years will be weighed heavily towards the fifth generation. As the carrier program is just getting started, there are no previous-generation fighters to replace. Is there anything the J-15 does better than the "J-XY"?

Seeing from the lack of progress on the J-15T technology demonstrator, I'm willing to bet that the Chinese will go from an all-5th-generation fleet from the get-go.

 

[SinoSoldier]

... is considered good for the development.

So a choice between a two-seat J-20 and single-seat J-31, does it make sense? Or could it be both?

So, the carrier-based J-20 is only an opinion from the OP?

 

[Inst]

The US used to employ both F-18As and F-14s on their carriers, with the aircraft in different weight classes and using two different types of engines. It's certainly a logistics headache, but not insurmountable.

 

[siegecrossbow]

The US used to employ both F-18As and F-14s on their carriers, with the aircraft in different weight classes and using two different types of engines. It's certainly a logistics headache, but not insurmountable.

The USN also had a lot more money to burn back in the good old days. I don't think the PLAN can match the USN budget in the foreseeable future.

 

[Equation]

The USN also had a lot more money to burn back in the good old days. I don't think the PLAN can match the USN budget in the foreseeable future.

No need to, the PLAN can match enough to bring their equipment to par along with new innovations as well. Bottom line is that they can add more bang for their money.

 

[latenlazy]

No need to, the PLAN can match enough to bring their equipment to par along with new innovations as well. Bottom line is that they can add more bang for their money.

The better question is whether two different fighters are even needed in a world of increasingly informationalized warfare.

 

[Equation]

The better question is whether two different fighters are even needed in a world of increasingly informationalized warfare.

One can always export the inferior of the two stealth fighters.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The better question is whether two different fighters are even needed in a world of increasingly informationalized warfare.

Two fighters were needed not because of non-informationalized warfare back then.
Decks had much more different types of aircraft back then, not just fighters. Some of capabilities from that times are still lost without any compensation, but so were threats which spawned those necessities.
Furthermore, there were different decks to begin with, some were very old(dating back to ww2).

Soviets actually planned to do with 3 different fighters, due to both needs and decks on hand and in future.(+other aircraft, but, interestingly, no ASW fixed wing).

China is to have at least 2 types of decks for decades to come(STOBAR and CATOBAR). At the same time, it has extremely capable adversaries, with most of the very same capabilities USN was so wary of back then.
Furthermore, there is one additional problem. Chinese list of potential adversaries includes USA itself.

 

[latenlazy]

Two fighters were needed not because of non-informationalized warfare back then.
Decks had much more different types of aircraft back then, not just fighters. Some of capabilities from that times are still lost without any compensation, but so were threats which spawned those necessities.
Furthermore, there were different decks to begin with, some were very old(dating back to ww2).

Soviets actually planned to do with 3 different fighters, due to both needs and decks on hand and in future.(+other aircraft, but, interestingly, no ASW fixed wing).

China is to have at least 2 types of decks for decades to come(STOBAR and CATOBAR). At the same time, it has extremely capable adversaries, with most of the very same capabilities USN was so wary of back then.
Furthermore, there is one additional problem. Chinese list of potential adversaries includes USA itself.

My point is the ways roles get delegated and distributed change dramatically with networked warfare. One fighter does not necessarily mean only one kind of airframe, and a formidable adversary tells us much more about how many planes are needed than how many different kinds of fighters there ought to be.

 

[Gloire_bb]

and a formidable adversary tells us much more about how many planes are needed than how many different kinds of fighters there ought to be

Both yes and no.
(1)number of fighters in the end is tied to the number and capacity of decks.
Carriers are harder to add than anything else.

(2)choosing only essential fighters may not be possible.

For example, lets take 1980s USN:
We have at least 5 different classes of carriers in service (Nimitz, Enterprise, Kitty Hawk +upgraded Midways and Essexes). You can't properly use Grumman aircraft on two of them, but they're still fully capable carriers other than that.
On one hand, even largest carriers are unfeasible with "all Grumman" wing, they tried and it performed worse than mix.
On the other hand, hypothetical "Hornet" heavy carrier would be incapable of defending it's own against typical Soviet threat, which would've been stupid back then.