Page 5 of 12

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:41
by babybat{}.net
boilermaker wrote:CHina rushing to replace deffective J-15 with stealth aircraft, possibly FC31


possibly J-20 :wink:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:47
by Corsair1963
babybat{}.net wrote:
possibly J-20 :wink:



I honestly doubt it....As the J-31 is far better suited to the mission.

"IMHO"

J31N.jpg

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:50
by knowan
J-20 is a bit on the heavy side for carrier ops.

I mean, they can probably get it working, but given their lack of experience with carriers, and with their two in service being STOBAR instead of CATOBAR, it seems going with a lighter weight design would be less problematic and the wiser choice.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 07:53
by babybat{}.net
Corsair1963 wrote:I honestly doubt it....As the J-31 is far better suited to the mission.


J-20 have much better characteristics then J-31 (excluding RCS). Some of them, for example combat radius are very important for navy fighter. That's why I think J-20 is the best choice.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 08:10
by weasel1962
Considering the USN design the F-35C with an expanded wing area, would the J-31 with its puny wing area be really "better" suited* for super fast carrier crashes..*oops, I meant landings...or end up much like how the flopping fish lands. I wonder how they did it with the scooter but that was a much lighter fighter. How much fuel would the J-31 need to carry to achieve 1250km combat radius with 2 fuel-guzzling RD-93s...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 06:24
by Corsair1963
babybat{}.net wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I honestly doubt it....As the J-31 is far better suited to the mission.


J-20 have much better characteristics then J-31 (excluding RCS). Some of them, for example combat radius are very important for navy fighter. That's why I think J-20 is the best choice.



The J-20 is way to big for Chinese Aircraft Carriers. While, I question any real performance advantage. As a matter of fact the J-31 is close in size to the F-35C. Which, is considered nearly ideal for carrier operations.

Asiaeye_Hensler_Chinas-Fifth-Generation-Air-Power-Development_071515.png



F35SU57J20.png

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 06:43
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Considering the USN design the F-35C with an expanded wing area, would the J-31 with its puny wing area be really "better" suited* for super fast carrier crashes..*oops, I meant landings...or end up much like how the flopping fish lands. I wonder how they did it with the scooter but that was a much lighter fighter. How much fuel would the J-31 need to carry to achieve 1250km combat radius with 2 fuel-guzzling RD-93s...



The Second Generation J-31's (V1/V2) are larger and more Stealthy than the original.....Which, likely put's is close in size to the F-35C.


J31VX.jpg



BTW Those fuel guzzling RD-93's are going be replaced with Chinese WS-13E's and/or WS-19's.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 09:46
by linkomart
Corsair1963 wrote:The J-20 is way to big for Chinese Aircraft Carriers. While, I question any real performance advantage. As a matter of fact the J-31 is close in size to the F-35C. Which, is considered nearly ideal for carrier operations.

Image


Picky picky picky... but in my Eyes that is a F-35A.

Someone else mentioned that the landingspeed will be high for J-31, I'll just say that I'm not able to pick that out without any weight numers.

my 5 cent.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 10:04
by Corsair1963
linkomart wrote:
Picky picky picky... but in my Eyes that is a F-35A.

Someone else mentioned that the landing speed will be high for J-31, I'll just say that I'm not able to pick that out without any weight numers.

my 5 cent.


It does look like an F-35A not a F-35C. Yet, the size between the two isn't that much in the scope of things. As for Wing Area of the J-31 it's still early in development. Plus, the last J-31 that we saw (V2) maybe the landbased version. So, we could see a Naval Version with a bigger wing. Think F-35A vs F-35C....

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 12:01
by babybat{}.net
Corsair1963 wrote:The J-20 is way to big for Chinese Aircraft Carriers. While, I question any real performance advantage. As a matter of fact the J-31 is close in size to the F-35C. Which, is considered nearly ideal for carrier operations.


Yes, you are right. It's for type 003. But I think, tests will begin on a 002 type.
It's not so far perspective.
I think, NAVY version of J-31 is not a good idea, because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships. First one is for conceptual researchers, second one also for manufacturing training. Type 002 will also used for testing a new technologies for China - such as EMALS and nuclear propulsion. Developing a special aircraft for them does not look as an optimal resources investment. And on later type 003 and 004, the tasks of J-31 will be taken over by the stealth UAVs.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 12:37
by weasel1962
Last I heard 002 isn't going nuclear. Also, most people would try not to test on a CV, especially when they already have such nice replicas in a couple of land bases for actual testing. Would normal people build a CV just for testing? Don't think shipyards "train" for manufacturing especially by building CV either.

The J-31 (both prototypes) has(have) similar wingspan to the F-35A, not C but longer than both (with the 2nd prototype about 40cm longer than the 1st, but similar wingspans). Sure there will always be the possibility of a navalised J-20 or J-31 but there will need to be a substantial redesign of existing designs before that happens. That should take a few years, if indeed there is an intent to build small quantities of such aircraft just for that purpose. They only took a decade to develop the J-15, that was with Ukrainian blueprints. The current nomenclature for such future project is the J-XY.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 13:02
by babybat{}.net
weasel1962 wrote:Last I heard 002 isn't going nuclear. Also, most people would try not to test on a CV, especially when they already have such nice replicas in a couple of land bases for actual testing.


The experience of ground tests is quite different from the real sea operations.
BTW this is the reason why Russia uses Kuznetsov. This is not propaganda, as some write here.

weasel1962 wrote:Would normal people build a CV just for testing? Don't think shipyards "train" for manufacturing especially by building CV either.


Why not?
I think, only USA have enough experience to build supercarriers.
Chinese way is a system. Step by step.
They bought first 2 ships only for researching.
Third ship they have rebuilded.
Fourth ship will build by good known project.
Fifth ship - for researching a new technologies.
Later ships will be really usefull supercarriers.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 21:30
by hythelday
babybat{}.net wrote:because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships.


Tsss... don't tell @Corsair1963 that. He thinks China built them to "close the gap with USN".

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 01:01
by weasel1962
China perspective: PLAN CVs are research, testing and training vessels. Nothing to see, move along...
US perspective: PLAN CVs are pieces of junk. Nothing to see, move along....

Examples of how agreements are reached.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 03:15
by madrat
China is the one country operating a carrier that makes the Russian operational safety record look brilliant in direct comparison.