SinoSoldier
Colonel
Shenyang is supposedly building a second J-31 prototype in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the PLAAF.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
vesicles
Colonel
I like the choice of a modified J-20. It is a platform that has been /is being extensively tested. It is clear that the PLA likes it. So why not milk it to the fullest?
I don't like multiple platforms. Focusing on too many projects is like spreading yourself too thin, during development and after deployment. Just imagine starting from scratch every time when you want a new plane. All that time and material invested. Yet, it has only one specialized use... Too wasteful! And imagine training separate pilots and technicians on each and every one of those planes. Less interchangeable personnel means that you will experience attrition more quickly in time of war.
They have invested so much in the J-20. I would like to see the plane get used in multiple ways. Naval J-20 would be nice.
Personally I doubt whether the mock up of that J-15 we saw was meant to indicate a catapult holdback bar... but there have been various other rumours and indications that suggest J-15 would be developed into a CATOBAR capable variant.
As to whether it can be done -- no doubt there will be some challenges in developing a variant, but should be well within the capabilities of SAC.
Yes.
I'm not sure about that -- a catapult will cause a vector of strain on the aircraft which is different to what an aircraft would face if it were only modified for STOBAR (that is, the landing)... to properly allow the aircraft to withstand those forces would require modifications I imagine.
The forces would have to be analyzed. There are tremendous forces exerted on the forward gear as it lands...first the rear gear contacts the deck, but then the forward gear comes down heavily. That landing also generates a tremendous force pushing back on the gear, both from the force of the landing, and from the arresting forces.
In order to beef up the entire carriage to withstand those forces, you are necessarily beefing up the areas that are going to have to withstand the tremendous pulling, cantilevered force that a cat launch also imparts.
Popeye's comment about a gear that has been beefed up substantially enough to withstand the landing forces, may well hold for that strengthening being enough to handle the launch forces as well in a general sense.
As I say, when you beef up the carriage to handle the landing forces you are going to necessarily make the gear much more capable of withstanding forces that would be imparted on launch.
Is it enough in all cases?
You can bet that all of the FEA analysis and calculations necessary are run to ensure that it is...and that it is also physically tested to also document it. Any deficiencies could be addressed.
Having said that, the naval personnel involved in the design and maintenance of such systems may have a rule of thumb that they have experienced over years that indicates that doing one in most cases allows for the other.
In order to beef up the entire carriage to withstand those forces, you are necessarily beefing up the areas that are going to have to withstand the tremendous pulling, cantilevered force that a cat launch also imparts.
Popeye's comment about a gear that has been beefed up substantially enough to withstand the landing forces, may well hold for that strengthening being enough to handle the launch forces as well in a general sense.
As I say, when you beef up the carriage to handle the landing forces you are going to necessarily make the gear much more capable of withstanding forces that would be imparted on launch.
Is it enough in all cases?
You can bet that all of the FEA analysis and calculations necessary are run to ensure that it is...and that it is also physically tested to also document it. Any deficiencies could be addressed.
Having said that, the naval personnel involved in the design and maintenance of such systems may have a rule of thumb that they have experienced over years that indicates that doing one in most cases allows for the other.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Shenyang probably has stolen landing gear designs of various catapult-capable aircrafts, so modifying J-15 front gear shouldn't be a problem.
@Jeff Head I was thinking more in terms of the stresses on the overall fuselage and the forward landing gear specifically, in regards to the forward strain they would experience due to the catapult.
Strengthening the fuselage and overall tricycle landing gear only for carrier arrested recoveries may not be enough to allow the aircraft to withstand the forward strain of a catapult launch.
As you said, there will be engineering that goes into all this... but on a purely general level, I think if J-15 was only strengthened for carrier arrested recoveries, then it would likely be incapable of conducting catapult launches without putting unacceptable levels of fatigue on the airframe.
Dude, really?
I mean, it's all fine if you want to suggest that SAC is unimaginative and you could even ask if China may have acquired catapult capable designs through espionage or whatever... but phrasing it like that is just asking for other members to criticize you... I myself am not offended, but I think others would well be justified in complaining about it.
As for the statement itself, I think SAC is competent enough to do that little bit of engineering themselves.
Strengthening the fuselage and overall tricycle landing gear only for carrier arrested recoveries may not be enough to allow the aircraft to withstand the forward strain of a catapult launch.
As you said, there will be engineering that goes into all this... but on a purely general level, I think if J-15 was only strengthened for carrier arrested recoveries, then it would likely be incapable of conducting catapult launches without putting unacceptable levels of fatigue on the airframe.
Dude, really?
I mean, it's all fine if you want to suggest that SAC is unimaginative and you could even ask if China may have acquired catapult capable designs through espionage or whatever... but phrasing it like that is just asking for other members to criticize you... I myself am not offended, but I think others would well be justified in complaining about it.
As for the statement itself, I think SAC is competent enough to do that little bit of engineering themselves.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Let me get this straight, you think I could/should use different words, something like "espionage" instead of "stolen," so it's more palatable to some readers. What do you say is the substantive difference between the two words? In the current context, I see none.
One is more emotionally neutral and less provocative while the other could be considered far more inflammatory and spiteful in tone and meaning.
Now don't get me wrong, you're obviously free to phrase what you're trying to say however you want, and you can use whatever words you wish within the bounds of the forum rules, but there are also many ways to start heated arguments and to incite emotional disagreements while remaining in the bounds of forum rules.
So what I'm really saying, is that you can say things however you want, but don't be surprised if people push back at the way you say it.
- Status