J-XY - maybe J-35 - next generation carrier-borne fighter


AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
You can have both.

With Catapults, the speed of the boat is far less of an issue.

Yes

The F/A-18 takeoff speed is 140 knots, so how significant is 10 knots difference in takeoff speed with a Wasp or Type-076?

---

Look at the propulsion specifications for the Wasp class LHDs, which are roughly the same displacement as the Type-075/076

A single 26KW gas turbine gets the ship to 18 knots.
Two of these turbines (52KW) gets the ship to 22 knots.
But if you wanted to get to 30 knots, theoretically you would need 5 turbines (130KW of power), as per the 3rd power law.

So you get a lot more range and endurance with slower ship speeds.
When you combine this with low-speed drones, the aviation fuel requirements go way down as well.

---

That is why I see a dedicated escort carrier design (in the Wasp/Type-076 weight class) as being very complementary to a full scale carrier.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I didn't make my statement clear. The "situational bubble" was talking about refers to the carrier's eyes & ears, not those of the J-15 itself. The J-20 and J-XY for sure will have a more complete sensor suite than the J-15B ever will, but the latter having a much larger radar implies a greater search range, which translates to greater radar coverage for the carrier group.

I don't know if I agree j15b will necessarily have large nose than j35. J35 is going to have probably a larger nose than f35, which has pretty large nose.
You can have both.

With Catapults, the speed of the boat is far less of an issue.

For full-on combat operations you will need full blooded fleet carriers, but how likely is it that China will want to invade some random country in Africa or the middle east?

It’s long range amphibious assault capabilities are, realistically speaking, going to be primarily used for security assistance and stabilisation operations in support of friendly nations being CIA-coup’d; and evacuating Chinese nationals in the event of a catastrophic collapse of friendly governments to foreign sponsored coups and civil wars.

For such missions, time is of the essence. Unless China is absolutely curbstomping the CIA in the spy business, China is going to potentially have very limited reaction time to a sudden coup attempt to be able to do enough to stop it from succeeding in ousting the friendly government or plunging the nation into civil war.

That, plus the very limited number and mission set of Chinese overseas military bases makes naval action groups the primary rapid reaction force China could realistically field on the short to medium term.

In that context, you don’t need nor want to pack your LHD/LHAs to the gills with marines and armour, thus the loss of some carrying capacity is going to be of limited or even no concern.

The purpose of mini-carrier LHD/LHAs like the like of 076 I envisage would be to provide PLAN with SAGs that can carry out such missions without needing fleet carrier support. Deploying 2-3 of such SAGs centred around such an 076 would give China the rapid reaction presence it needs to hopefully dissuade the CIA from even attempting some coups while not diluting the PLAN fleet carrier fleet strengths at home.

The alternative is that the PLAN would need up to 6 additional fleet carriers to do the same peacetime missions if we factor in the rest, refit and retraining times needed after long deployments.

The J35s would be there primarily to provide fleet air defence and escort for rotor wing friendlies of such SAGs, as well as providing PLAN carrier pilots with useful experience of long duration naval aviation deployments without needing to send out full fleet carriers.

In that sense, you should get 90% of the peacetime capabilities of deploying full fleet carriers for maybe 20-30% of the costs.
Again, a lhd design cannot be efficient for this purpose that you have in mind. You are looking for a mini carrier. I would much rather have a 60k t carrier to do the mission that you are thinking of rather than a 50k t lhd. A type 076 will still need a full well deck and a separate deck for amphibious vehicles and equipment. It will never be close to be efficient for the mission you have in mind.

Your goal here is to pack up individual platform with as much firepower as possible. I don't see the reason to do that. for the mission you described, China can just send cv16.

Your last statement is baffling. Who told you a type 076 in the configuration you suggested will have 20 to 30% of the cost. Where did you get that figure from?
 

plawolf

Brigadier
Again, a lhd design cannot be efficient for this purpose that you have in mind. You are looking for a mini carrier. I would much rather have a 60k t carrier to do the mission that you are thinking of rather than a 50k t lhd. A type 076 will still need a full well deck and a separate deck for amphibious vehicles and equipment. It will never be close to be efficient for the mission you have in mind.

Your goal here is to pack up individual platform with as much firepower as possible. I don't see the reason to do that. for the mission you described, China can just send cv16.

I am really puzzled why you would be so adamant that LHD/LHAs providing fixed wing fastjet support for a SAG is such a novel and unworkable suggestion when the US has been doing that for decades with their Wasp and America classes.

Yes, those are STOVL aircraft, but the issues you are having with storage, maintenance and support of the aircraft, endurance of the LHD/A etc are all the same.

The Russians are also toying with just such an idea with the Varan concept, even if that is more likely than not going to be vapourware, it’s still something a major navy is giving serious consideration to

Is a real carrier better? In a world without opportunity cost and infinite resources, sure go nuts, but that’s a full carrier in the real world, with all the procurement and operating costs that goes with that, and which will still need an LHD as part of the SAG to fulfil the same role. Not even the USN can afford to have a carrier go with every amphibious SAG.

Your last statement is baffling. Who told you a type 076 in the configuration you suggested will have 20 to 30% of the cost. Where did you get that figure from?

Nimitz class goes for around $22bn a pop, America class goes for around $3.4bn, or 15% of a Nimitz.

EMCATs and an angled flight deck will make an 076 cost more, but surely not make the 076 cost more than double the price of an 075.
 

tphuang

Brigadier
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I am really puzzled why you would be so adamant that LHD/LHAs providing fixed wing fastjet support for a SAG is such a novel and unworkable suggestion when the US has been doing that for decades with their Wasp and America classes.
I'm not saying it's unworkable. I'm saying it's not optimal. Quite a big difference. There are quite a few Western navies with access to F-35B and LHDs that have not tried to utilize them in that role despite Internet fanboys hoping so. US military is pretty unique in that the America class and carriers are operated by separate services. USMC's LHAs are half way between LHD and a super carrier. Assuming that Type 076 will operate under PLAN as LHD, there is no need for it to be operated in the same way as America class. Now if Type 076s are LHA (without well deck), then I think J-35 integration would make more sense. In that case, Type 076 would be more like baby carrier.

Again, having flexibility of J-35 flying off Type 076 is good. I don't think long deployment is a good idea.
Yes, those are STOVL aircraft, but the issues you are having with storage, maintenance and support of the aircraft, endurance of the LHD/A etc are all the same.

The Russians are also toying with just such an idea with the Varan concept, even if that is more likely than not going to be vapourware, it’s still something a major navy is giving serious consideration to

Is a real carrier better? In a world without opportunity cost and infinite resources, sure go nuts, but that’s a full carrier in the real world, with all the procurement and operating costs that goes with that, and which will still need an LHD as part of the SAG to fulfil the same role. Not even the USN can afford to have a carrier go with every amphibious SAG.

Nimitz class goes for around $22bn a pop, America class goes for around $3.4bn, or 15% of a Nimitz.

EMCATs and an angled flight deck will make an 076 cost more, but surely not make the 076 cost more than double the price of an 075.
Nimitz class was $8.5 billion each in 2012 dollar
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

America class was $3.4 billion each in 2015 dollar
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Keep in mind that Nimitz class is really large. The difference between CV-16/17 and Type 076 will not be all that large. If a Type 076 need all the space and capabilities that you have requested (even if just to station 8 to 12 J-35s) and have well deck, it would probably get to 50k t in displacement. Not that far away from CV-16/17.
 

SAC

Junior Member
Registered Member
Why would China want such a capability? Essentially a light CATOBAR aircraft carrier and LHD in one ship.

This would be cheaper than building an actual CATOBAR carrier yet providing some of the capability, i.e. strike via stealth aircraft.

Such a vessel might mean you don’t need an aircraft carrier for a particular operation. Stealth UCAVs and/or J-35 on Type 076 may be sufficient.

Would be a very useful addition to PLANS 16 or 17, given their limited fixed-wing capabilities. 1x076 + 1x001/2 could complement each other.

Summary:

1. Complementarity with Liaoning and Shandong.

2. Depending on the mission may be able to operate without a carrier in support.

3. Greater operational flexibility, full LHD + limited CATOBAR

4. Removes the need for V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft
 

Scchwerter_

Junior Member
Registered Member
Rumor clips on Chinese tiktok showing J-35 will debut on the 003 when launched in June. Real?
I mean Type 003 would likely require at least another year of fitting after launched so any claim of jets debuing "on" the carrier when launched is just plain untrue.
 

lcloo

Senior Member
A type 076 LHA with light aircarft carrier capability vs an aircraft carrier is like a jack of all trades vs a specialist. A jack of all trades can be more versatile but a specialist can do things much better.

It is a matter of distribution and employment of assets and resources. If you have limited resources you need a type 076 to do both amphibious assault jobs and light aircraft carrier jobs. If you are rich, just add more aircraft carrier.

Why would US Marines, an independent military branch, chose to use LHA to base their F-35B is may be because their missions rest mainly on amphibious assaults, and having an independent air wing (from USN aircraft carriers and USN aircrafts) means they would not need to tie their mission destinations to movements and deployments of USN aircraft carriers. Of course, both USN and US Marines can always work together but sometimes US Marines may have to work alone.

Unlike US Marines, PLA Marines are part of PLA Navy, they work as a part of PLAN deployment. Do they need a separate air wing to base on an LHA or LHD?

I think the point is do you want to use manned aircraft like F-35 to support your amphibious assauts, or do you prefer to use armed strike drones? And what will the design of type 076 be? Will it be designed for strike drones or manned fixed wing strike jets?

We shall have the anwer when type 076 appear.
 

Top