PLA Navy news, pics and videos

latenlazy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree that UCAVs are definitely an important way to go to facilitate a greater capacity for conducting stealthy strike operations, but I don't expect UCAVs of that size and complexity to be ready for operation until something like after 2025.

Given the place of network centric/informationized warfare and the importance of datalinks and increasingly smart weapons in modern warfare, I think a naval fighter which compromises a little in terms of stealth and/or kinematics, to allow it to carry larger diameter powered payloads like JSM or AARGM-ER sized weapons is a worthwhile trade.


Keep in mind the JSM and AARGM-ER aren't anywhere near the size of a YJ-12 or something, and are closer to the volume of an AIM-120D (or PL-15 I suppose) than anything. Yet that extra little depth and length in terms of the weapons bay provides substantially more flexibility in terms of weapons suite choice.

vincent said:

Bigger weapons bay means fatter fuselage -> worst flight performance

Click to expand...

Yes, but it depends on how much worse it is.

I think there should be a compromise between increasing the weapons bay volume to allow for JSM/AARGM-ER sized weapons to be carried internally, while maintaining kinematic performance to an acceptable degree, even if it may be inferior to a land based J-20.

Bltizo said:

I agree that UCAVs are definitely an important way to go to facilitate a greater capacity for conducting stealthy strike operations, but I don't expect UCAVs of that size and complexity to be ready for operation until something like after 2025.

Given the place of network centric/informationized warfare and the importance of datalinks and increasingly smart weapons in modern warfare, I think a naval fighter which compromises a little in terms of stealth and/or kinematics, to allow it to carry larger diameter powered payloads like JSM or AARGM-ER sized weapons is a worthwhile trade.


Keep in mind the JSM and AARGM-ER aren't anywhere near the size of a YJ-12 or something, and are closer to the volume of an AIM-120D (or PL-15 I suppose) than anything. Yet that extra little depth and length in terms of the weapons bay provides substantially more flexibility in terms of weapons suite choice.

Click to expand...

I also don't a naval stealth fighter will be ready by 2025 though. If we're going to emphasize network centric warfare they might as well go all the way rather than commit to a solution that's a compromise.

latenlazy said:

I also don't a naval stealth fighter will be ready by 2025 though. If we're going to emphasize network centric warfare they might as well go all the way rather than commit to a solution that's a compromise.

Click to expand...

I do think a naval stealth fighter will be ready by 2025 though... and when it does finish development I expect it to be far more "mature" than the first generation carrierborne stealthy UCAV whenever it finishes development.


So I don't think what I suggested would be a compromise, but rather it would be a natural progression towards increasing networked stealthy strike capabilities.



Generally speaking, I also think the idea of what will likely be the Navy's premier (and likely only) carrierborne stealth fighter for decades after 2025, being unable to carry a medium weight, powered stand off weapon, would be a serious mistake as it significantly limits the flexibility of the fighter itself, effectively limiting its direct combat roles to A2A missions and direct attack strike missions.

It will lack the ability to conduct stand off strike as well as DEAD, both of which will (or should be) among the Chinese carrier fleet's future primary missions.

Bltizo said:

Generally speaking, I also think the idea of what will likely be the Navy's premier (and likely only) carrierborne stealth fighter for decades after 2025, being unable to carry a medium weight, powered stand off weapon, would be a serious mistake as it significantly limits the flexibility of the fighter itself, effectively limiting its direct combat roles to A2A missions and direct attack strike missions.

It will lack the ability to conduct stand off strike as well as DEAD, both of which will (or should be) among the Chinese carrier fleet's future primary missions.

Click to expand...

There is no stealth fighter in the world that can "conduct stand off strike" or carry "medium weight, powered stand off weapons", whether navalized or not, assuming you are trying to maintain stealth. What you're asking for is physically impossible given the lack of suitable internal space for such stand-off weapons as far as any stealth fighter is concerned. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Now if you don't care about maintaining stealth for a particular mission/sortie, then any stealth fighter in the world can conduct (theoretically) stand-off strike and DEAD, etc.

Bltizo said:

I do think a naval stealth fighter will be ready by 2025 though... and when it does finish development I expect it to be far more "mature" than the first generation carrierborne stealthy UCAV whenever it finishes development.


So I don't think what I suggested would be a compromise, but rather it would be a natural progression towards increasing networked stealthy strike capabilities.



Generally speaking, I also think the idea of what will likely be the Navy's premier (and likely only) carrierborne stealth fighter for decades after 2025, being unable to carry a medium weight, powered stand off weapon, would be a serious mistake as it significantly limits the flexibility of the fighter itself, effectively limiting its direct combat roles to A2A missions and direct attack strike missions.

It will lack the ability to conduct stand off strike as well as DEAD, both of which will (or should be) among the Chinese carrier fleet's future primary missions.

Click to expand...

I imagine development time for a high payload stealth UCAV might be significantly faster than for a stealth fighter though, in part because key component technologies are already in development and in part because developing for a strike plane is probably less intensive than for a fighter. I take your point about going for an extended time with capability gaps, but if the PLAN is serious about developing a strike UCAV it's unlikely they wouldn't sequence development to ensure timeliness. After all, they are already doing this with a carrier borne AWACS. Even if such a platform doesn't emerge though it's not like such capabilities can't either be added into a future iteration through an updated variant or addons on stealthy payload containers, though of course that would be unideal. Also, when the naval stealth fighter it won't instantly replace legacy airwings. Like any other new platform it will be gradually phased in, which softens the time constraints that would have to be met to bring into operation other platforms in tandem.

Bltizo said:

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

Click to expand...

Because such a relationship between the two didn't yield a discrepancy in this case, did it?

Bltizo said:

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.

Click to expand...

How did you arrive at that conclusion? I don't think I mentioned anywhere that smaller carriers need larger fighters and vice versa.

My point is: the PLAN would need to consider the size restrictions of its carriers when evaluating the FC-31 against the J-20 particularly in the near future, since the airwing would be confined to the 002 and 003. If the PLAN pursues a larger CVN in the distant future (a notional 004), then it would be relatively free from having to consider the size of the fighters it could choose from.

So, on the contrary, what I'm saying is:
- a "smaller" carrier would require smaller aircraft and the PLAN would have to take that factor into account
- a "larger" carrier would be able to accommodate larger aircraft and the PLAN would be free to focus on other qualities of its future fighters (such as payload, range, etc.)

I'm not saying that payload/range/etc. shouldn't be accounted for when selecting fighters for smaller CVs but that their influence would be limited vis-a-vis a tender for a future 100k ton CVN.

latenlazy said:

I imagine development time for a high payload stealth UCAV might be significantly faster than for a stealth fighter though, in part because key component technologies are already in development and in part because developing for a strike plane is probably less intensive than for a fighter.

Click to expand...

I'm confused as to how you reach that conclusion.

Considering any naval stealth fighter will be derived from J-20 or FC-31, I'm not sure how you could say that it would take longer to develop a naval stealth fighter for the Chinese Navy than developing a high payload stealthy UCAV.

The maturity of the relevant subsystems, testing, and production-readiness for a naval stealth fighter atm should far outstrip that of a naval stealthy ucav.

I take your point about going for an extended time with capability gaps, but if the PLAN is serious about developing a strike UCAV it's unlikely they wouldn't sequence development to ensure timeliness. After all, they are already doing this with a carrier borne AWACS. Even if such a platform doesn't emerge though it's not like such capabilities can't either be added into a future iteration through an updated variant or addons on stealthy payload containers, though of course that would be unideal. Also, when the naval stealth fighter it won't instantly replace legacy airwings. Like any other new platform it will be gradually phased in, which softens the time constraints that would have to be met to bring into operation other platforms in tandem.

Click to expand...

I understand, however that doesn't address my overall argument IMO.

I'm basically saying that I believe the potential "costs" of having the naval stealth fighter be able to carry stand off powered weapons in the JSM/AARGM-ER class internally is fairly minimal while incurring significant benefits in terms of future flexibility.


OTOH, I believe the long term costs in terms of future flexibility if the naval stealth fighter does not have a sufficiently large weapons bay I believe could prove to be quite damaging for the overall long term strategic capability of the carrier strike group of the future.

Iron Man said:

There is no stealth fighter in the world that can "conduct stand off strike" or carry "medium weight, powered stand off weapons", whether navalized or not, assuming you are trying to maintain stealth. What you're asking for is physically impossible given the lack of suitable internal space for such stand-off weapons as far as any stealth fighter is concerned. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Now if you don't care about maintaining stealth for a particular mission/sortie, then any stealth fighter in the world can conduct (theoretically) stand-off strike and DEAD, etc.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the F-35 and the Joint Strike Missile, Turkish SOM-J and/or AARGM-ER?

SinoSoldier said:

So, on the contrary, what I'm saying is:
- a "smaller" carrier would require smaller aircraft and the PLAN would have to take that factor into account

Click to expand...

How would you explain the Liaoning's airwing, then?

Much smaller hangar than USN carriers but the J-15 is much larger than anything the USN operates from their carriers. Evidently, the PLAN's calculus for aircraft capability vs aircraft capacity is favourable to the notion of operating larger aircraft in spite of lower numbers.