PLA Navy news, pics and videos

SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
AndrewS said:
In the face of widespread A2AD, we can see the US Navy regretting that they didn't go with a longer ranged fighter for the F-35C.

So why should China make the same mistake by going for a F-35C sized aircraft?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Chinese carriers will be significantly smaller than European & American ones in the foreseeable future? The fact of the matter is that, through a plethora of circumstances and variables, the PLAN has set specific size/weight requirements for its 5th generation fighter and the competing designs (J-20, FC-31) will have to adapt to them.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Chinese carriers will be significantly smaller than European & American ones in the foreseeable future? The fact of the matter is that, through a plethora of circumstances and variables, the PLAN has set specific size/weight requirements for its 5th generation fighter and the competing designs (J-20, FC-31) will have to adapt to them.
Click to expand...

Considering the largest European carrier in the immediate future will be the CVF class whose current full displacement is about the same as the Liaoning, I think your first sentence should remove the "European" part.

I fully expect the Chinese Navy's requirements for their naval fighter to be dependent on a whole set of circumstances and variables (obviously), but I don't see how the relative size of their carriers compared to say, USN carriers, should be considered by us as a significant factor.


IMO it would also make sense to have a relatively large fighter once Chinese carriers are larger as well... but let's not jump the gun yet. We have no idea what the two proposals are like at all, so speculation regarding the Navy's potential requirements is a bit early.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Bltizo said:
Considering the largest European carrier in the immediate future will be the CVF class whose current full displacement is about the same as the Liaoning, I think your first sentence should remove the "European" part.

I fully expect the Chinese Navy's requirements for their naval fighter to be dependent on a whole set of circumstances and variables (obviously), but I don't see how the relative size of their carriers compared to say, USN carriers, should be considered by us as a significant factor.


IMO it would also make sense to have a relatively large fighter once Chinese carriers are larger as well... but let's not jump the gun yet. We have no idea what the two proposals are like at all, so speculation regarding the Navy's potential requirements is a bit early.
Click to expand...

The QE class will still carry more fighters than the Liaoning though, so despite their similar displacements their air complement will still differ by a notable magnitude.

I'm not ruling out the adoption of larger carrier-based fighters off in the distant future, but the PLAN may very well wish to fully take advantage of the deck space provided by the 002 (ex-001A) and 003 (ex-002). For that, it would need more compact fighters. Range concerns may be mitigated by investing in conformal tanks, UAV-derived tankers, or more fuel-efficient engines. But the PLAN will have to compromise and strike a balance.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
The QE class will still carry more fighters than the Liaoning though, so despite their similar displacements their air complement will still differ by a notable magnitude.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't you talk about using the size of a carrier's fighter complement rather than the size of the carrier itself?


I'm not ruling out the adoption of larger carrier-based fighters off in the distant future, but the PLAN may very well wish to fully take advantage of the deck space provided by the 002 (ex-001A) and 003 (ex-002). For that, it would need more compact fighters. Range concerns may be mitigated by investing in conformal tanks, UAV-derived tankers, or more fuel-efficient engines. But the PLAN will have to compromise and strike a balance.
Click to expand...

Of course the Chinese Navy will want to strike a balance between size versus numbers.

I'm more interested in why you think that the Chinese Navy will be more interested in having a smaller number of larger fighters when it has a "smaller" carrier (like Liaoning, CV-17/002 etc), and why you think they would diverge to wanting a large number of smaller fighters once it has a "larger" carrier (like 003 etc)...


Or putting it another way, you seem to be saying:
- a "smaller" carrier means the Chinese navy would be interested in having a smaller complement/number of larger (longer ranged/heavier) fighters
- a "larger" carriers means the Chinese navy would be interested in having a larger complement/number of smaller (shorter ranged/lighter) fighters

I'm curious how that logic works.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
To add my own 2 cents to this discussion, I think the question of size/overall dimensions of the CAC and SAC proposals should hopefully be only part of the consideration.

I hope that the Navy is also seriously considering a proposal with a more voluminous weapons bay than what both J-20 and FC-31 both currently have in their land based variants.



The F-35, despite all the flak it gets for its big round weapons bays that bulge out on its ventral side, does allow it to carry some fairly large diameter stand off range weapons like the JSM, and even the AARGM-ER in future. Given the Chinese Navy's 5th generation naval fighter will likely have to operate both as the primary stealthy air to air and air to surface platform, and given the very important role of using stand off powered weapons in modern warfare and especially in fixed wing naval strike, I hope whatever variant the Navy goes for has the internal weapons bay dimensions to carry a couple of JSM sized weapons with at least a pair of BVR AAMs alongside it. Even if that means making the ventral side of the aircraft bulge out a little like F-35 I would consider that a sacrifice worth making.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Bltizo said:
To add my own 2 cents to this discussion, I think the question of size/overall dimensions of the CAC and SAC proposals should hopefully be only part of the consideration.

I hope that the Navy is also seriously considering a proposal with a more voluminous weapons bay than what both J-20 and FC-31 both currently have in their land based variants.



The F-35, despite all the flak it gets for its big round weapons bays that bulge out on its ventral side, does allow it to carry some fairly large diameter stand off range weapons like the JSM, and even the AARGM-ER in future. Given the Chinese Navy's 5th generation naval fighter will likely have to operate both as the primary stealthy air to air and air to surface platform, and given the very important role of using stand off powered weapons in modern warfare and especially in fixed wing naval strike, I hope whatever variant the Navy goes for has the internal weapons bay dimensions to carry a couple of JSM sized weapons with at least a pair of BVR AAMs alongside it. Even if that means making the ventral side of the aircraft bulge out a little like F-35 I would consider that a sacrifice worth making.
Click to expand...

In that case, might as well go for two types of carrier-based aircrafts: an air superiority fighter and a fighter-bomber
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
To add my own 2 cents to this discussion, I think the question of size/overall dimensions of the CAC and SAC proposals should hopefully be only part of the consideration.

I hope that the Navy is also seriously considering a proposal with a more voluminous weapons bay than what both J-20 and FC-31 both currently have in their land based variants.



The F-35, despite all the flak it gets for its big round weapons bays that bulge out on its ventral side, does allow it to carry some fairly large diameter stand off range weapons like the JSM, and even the AARGM-ER in future. Given the Chinese Navy's 5th generation naval fighter will likely have to operate both as the primary stealthy air to air and air to surface platform, and given the very important role of using stand off powered weapons in modern warfare and especially in fixed wing naval strike, I hope whatever variant the Navy goes for has the internal weapons bay dimensions to carry a couple of JSM sized weapons with at least a pair of BVR AAMs alongside it. Even if that means making the ventral side of the aircraft bulge out a little like F-35 I would consider that a sacrifice worth making.
Click to expand...
I think, frankly, if there's a desire for better strike capabilities, going with a combo of a multi role fighter that doesn't compromise air superiority and can carry external loads with a large payload strike UCAV might make a lot more sense than trying to force larger weapons bays into the design.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
vincent said:
In that case, might as well go for two types of carrier-based aircrafts: an air superiority fighter and a fighter-bomber
Click to expand...

"Might as well" suggests that such a route would be easy to do.

On the contrary, developing two separate stealth fighters, one as an air superiority fighter and one as a strike aircraft, would be difficult and costly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top