Queen Liz Carrier with Full F-35B compiment versus?

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.

How does the QE F-35B compare to other navies

Poll ended at 11 Oct 2020, 03:13

The French and Charles De Gaul are 2nd to US?
0
No votes
The British are better, 2nd to the U.S
9
75%
The Chinese are now 2nd
3
25%
The Indian navy is 2nd
0
No votes
The Japanese are 2nd
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 12

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6912
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post11 Oct 2020, 10:25

milosh wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:
marauder2048 wrote:The issue with heavy AB usage for takeoff, particularly for LO inlets, is hot gas ingestion.


He doesn't get all of these issues. He simply compares nunbers and thinks if the U.S. can do it China can do it.
If the J-20 was capable of being navalized it would be done already.


No I write just about "lack" of thrust. That isn't problem.Of course J-20 would need to get fat and probable bigger wing, but as I point out there is enough reserve of thrust to that be done.

And no way they could use some J-20C from carriers they have now. Type-001 and 002 don't have catapult and aren't suited for big fighters.

In fact Soviets didn't even plan to use those carriers with Su-33 expect for training, MiG-29K was what was planed for them but then USSR collapsed.


Clearly, the wing of the J-20 would have to be modified somewhat to operate from PLAN Aircraft Carriers. Yet, how extensively is anybody's guess??? Regardless, they clearly could operate them from both the Liaoning and Shandong​. If, the PLAN wanted too....

Of course that is not likely to happen. (IMHO) As the J-31 is better suited for Carrier Operations.....

Plus, your wrong about the Su-33 and Mig-29K. As the Russian Navy selected the former over the latter from the very beginning. Though it was revived later when Russia rebuilt and sold the Vikramaditya (ex-Gorshkov) to India. Which, was part of the deal....

Now more recently Russia decided to acquire some Mig-29K's. Only because it was already in production for the Indian Navy. Unlike the Su-33 that had been out of production for decades. Yet, not because they had a preference for the Mig over the Sukhoi.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post11 Oct 2020, 15:48

@Corsair1963

I forgot to add, Soviets planed Su-33 for Ulynovski super carrier, while Tbilisi class carriers would be used primary for training of Su-33 pilots.

Later in Russia, Su-33 was prefered over MiG-29K because it was in production and some number of planes were build in USSR. But it isn't good choice for smaller carriers.

J-20 is even worse choice for smaller carriers, I really doubt Chinese would have them on Type-001/002 carriers. For super carriers J-20 ins't problem though.

But we still didn't see nothing of J-20 naval nor J-31 naval, in fact J-31 still isn't finished.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6912
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post12 Oct 2020, 01:44

milosh wrote:@Corsair1963

I forgot to add, Soviets planed Su-33 for Ulynovski super carrier, while Tbilisi class carriers would be used primary for training of Su-33 pilots.

Later in Russia, Su-33 was prefered over MiG-29K because it was in production and some number of planes were build in USSR. But it isn't good choice for smaller carriers.

J-20 is even worse choice for smaller carriers, I really doubt Chinese would have them on Type-001/002 carriers. For super carriers J-20 ins't problem though.

But we still didn't see nothing of J-20 naval nor J-31 naval, in fact J-31 still isn't finished.


The PLAN is clearly developing a Naval Model of the J-31 for her Aircraft Carriers. So, hardly matters if the J-20 is or isn't suited to the role.........
Offline

jessmo112

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 231
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post12 Oct 2020, 09:18

Like I mentioned before, If you think the J-20 has weight issues, the J-31 needs AB for level flight.
Adding 5k of weight might not help.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4161
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post12 Oct 2020, 13:18

J-20 comparison with F-14 really isn't valid. As stated by someone prior, F-14 had all its weight from day 1 whereas J-20 will gain a LOT of weight in the process of "navalising" it. That, combined with unreliable engines and a wing that isn't optimized for carrier use = asking for it, at least in terms of accidents.

More importantly, the F-14's variable geometry wings were infinitely better for carrier ops vs. the current J-20 wing. A bigger wing would have to be put on an already big aircraft, and even then I'm not confident they could get it to slow down enough. Problems with engines/catapault launches plus problems on landng = disaster in the making.

Which is probably why no "navalised" J-20 has been seen. The Chinese aren't dumb...
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post12 Oct 2020, 15:26

mixelflick wrote:J-20 comparison with F-14 really isn't valid. As stated by someone prior, F-14 had all its weight from day 1 whereas J-20 will gain a LOT of weight in the process of "navalising" it.


And what I did in earlier posts? I did math how heavy J-20 can be and still have SAME t/w ratio as F-14A (empty aircrafts).

So J-20C can have more weight then Su-34 :shock: and still have better T/W ratio then F-14A.

Btw there are even "worse" examples which can be used for comparison with J-20. For example A-5 Vigilante. I didn't read it was super problematic for take off from super carrier even though its T/W ratio was noticeable worse then F-14A.

mixelflick wrote:
That, combined with unreliable engines and a wing that isn't optimized for carrier use = asking for it, at least in terms of accidents.


This is BS. You read WS-15 isn't reliable and apply that to engines J-20 now use. AL-31FM2 and WS-10B to be precise.

To stop this offtopic, it is quite simple, maybe in start Type-003 will have J-15 as main fighter but some stealth is surely in development. Is that J-20C of FC-31C, or something else I really don't know but building expensive super carriers and still use 4gen fighters in XXI centry is very dumb.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 00:03

milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:J-20 comparison with F-14 really isn't valid. As stated by someone prior, F-14 had all its weight from day 1 whereas J-20 will gain a LOT of weight in the process of "navalising" it.


And what I did in earlier posts? I did math how heavy J-20 can be and still have SAME t/w ratio as F-14A (empty aircrafts).

So J-20C can have more weight then Su-34 :shock: and still have better T/W ratio then F-14A.

Btw there are even "worse" examples which can be used for comparison with J-20. For example A-5 Vigilante. I didn't read it was super problematic for take off from super carrier even though its T/W ratio was noticeable worse then F-14A.


And yet you seem to continue to be fixated with 'T/W ratio' while at the same time 'ignoring' the real (and somehow 'simpler') issues which are 'weight' (without the 'thrust' part) and 'size'.

In the end, the problem isn't if a 'navalized' J-20 will have (or not) powerful enough engines to overcome its weight which will be quite higher compared to the already heavy land based J-20 but instead the problem will be its weight and size. Lets address the first issue, weight:
- Since the land based J-20 is already very heavy aircraft, I believe that one can 'easily' imagine that a much more resistant landing gear and reinforced airframe not to mention a much more resistant arresting hook are needed compared to the same 'navalized' modifications needed for a lighter aircraft. This means that the 'weight gain' that a 'navalized' J-20 aircraft would get would be much bigger (heavier) comparatively to the same modifications on a lighter aircraft.
Moreover, the issue with being 'too heavy' is probably worse during landings - for instance heavier aircraft will need much more resistant arresting cables and arresting hooks (for former is a problem for the carrier while the later for the aircraft as it means even more 'extra' weight gain) - than during takeoffs.
A very heavy aircraft like a 'navalized' J-20 would also and likely mean 'extra 'stress' for the aircraft carrier structure, namely the landing deck specially during landings.
Resuming (about the weight issue), a 'navalized' J-20 would be considerably heavier than the F-14. And if you think that this wouldn't be a real issue then take look at the F-111B program (which was basically cancelled due to being 'too heavy').

- Regarding size, this is an another very important issue and probably even more important than weight since large aircraft take much more space in an already very limited space which is the hanger and deck of an aircraft carrier (when in the bigger ones!). There's a reason why most Naval aircraft have folding wings.
Yes, you mentioned the A-5 Vigilante (actually, I was the first one mentioned it in this thread) which was a bit bigger than the J-20 but you seem to forget that the A-5 Vigilante was a nuclear bomber which was later adapted for reconnaissance roles which means one thing: The total number of A-5 Vigilantes in a US aircraft carrier was always very small (much smaller compared to fighter aircraft like the F-4 Phantom) - basically they operated in small detachments aboard US Navy Carriers.
Now the J-20 in a Chinese aircraft carrier would be the main (if not the only) fighter aircraft and thus not a specialized aircraft on board with limited numbers like the A-5 which means that the number of combat/fighter aircraft in such Chinese carriers (even in the proposed Chinese "super-carriers") would be very limited if a 'Navalized' variant of the J-20 is to be chosen and this is something that would be even worse with a 'fatter' and 'Navalized' J-20.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1138
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 15:26

ricnunes wrote:
And yet you seem to continue to be fixated with 'T/W ratio' while at the same time 'ignoring' the real (and somehow 'simpler') issues which are 'weight' (without the 'thrust' part) and 'size'.



Well it all started with J-20 doesn't have enough thrust to be able to take off from super carrier. So I explain why it isn't true but folks still try to prove it lack thrust only because WS-15 isn't ready. That is why I am focused on T/W ratio.

Size is problem but that is also exaggerated on early estimates of J-20 which back then was long 23m.

In fact J-20 is smaller then J-11.

So it is smaller then J-15 too.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 16:06

AFAIK there has never been a high sweep delta carrier aircraft. The lift curve slope is too low. That is the issue. Not wrong loading, not TWR, not length, not weight.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 17:09

milosh wrote:Well it all started with J-20 doesn't have enough thrust to be able to take off from super carrier. So I explain why it isn't true but folks still try to prove it lack thrust only because WS-15 isn't ready. That is why I am focused on T/W ratio.


I agree that T/W ratio shouldn't be an issue or much of an issue regarding being able (or not) to operate from a carrier, namely from a "super carrier".
Any 'lack of T/W ratio' which the J-20 could have (or not) should 'only' impact its capability while being in the air and when performing missions (such as engaging enemy aircraft or not being able to carry heavier payloads for example) and again not directly in its ability to operate from carriers.


milosh wrote:Size is problem but that is also exaggerated on early estimates of J-20 which back then was long 23m.

In fact J-20 is smaller then J-11.

So it is smaller then J-15 too.


The problem is that size or should I say the area that an aircraft occupies inside an aircraft carrier's hangar for example isn't dictated only by its length or even by it's wingspan. Wing area for example is also and probably a bigger issue when it comes to taking up space in an hangar. For instance a wing with a slightly smaller wingspan but with a considerably bigger wing area will occupy considerably more area than a wing with a slightly bigger wingspan but otherwise with a considerably smaller wing area and this applies even more to naval aircraft since they usually have folding wings which help to 'solve' the wingspan problem. Of course one can argue that folding wings also help with wing area but this isn't the same amount of 'help' compared with wingspan since the area or part of the wing that folds up is always a smaller area compared to the rest of the wing.
And this (wing area 'issue') is what happens with the J-20 compared to the J-11 and J-15. Take a look:

J-20 (land based aircraft):
length --> 20.4 m
wingspan --> 13.5 m
wing area --> 78 m2

J-11 (land based aircraft):
length --> 21.9 m
wingspan --> 14.7 m
wing area --> 52.84 m2

J-15 (carrier based aircraft):
length --> 21.9 m
wingspan --> 14.7 m
wing area --> 62.04 m2

So the Land Based J-20 despite having slightly smaller length and wingspan (1.5 meter less in length) it has a considerably bigger wing area (16 square meters more) compared to the J-15 which is a naval aircraft and then again the J-20 is a land based aircraft.
If we look at the figures above the J-15 which is basically a navalized J-11 has a quite big increase in its wing area (from 52.84 up to 62.04 square meters) and then I believe it's 'relatively easy' to imagine how much bigger the wing of a navalized J-20 would need to be compared to the land based J-20 and even more compared to the J-15 and how much more space a navalized J-20 would take up inside a carrier's hangar and on the deck compared for instance with the J-15 (and this just not to compare it with smaller fighter aircraft).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2767
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 17:13

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:AFAIK there has never been a high sweep delta carrier aircraft. The lift curve slope is too low. That is the issue. Not wrong loading, not TWR, not length, not weight.


I agree with you above except for the weight part. I would say that being 'too heavy' is quite a big issue for a naval aircraft. Again the F-111B was cancelled because of this.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4935
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 17:21

Fair that there is an upper limit on weight. The F-14 showed how high that limit can be, but it had a straight wing and huge flaps to give it speeds around the boat that the much lighter Hornet would be jealous of.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1410
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 19:29

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:AFAIK there has never been a high sweep delta carrier aircraft. The lift curve slope is too low. That is the issue. Not wrong loading, not TWR, not length, not weight.


Hence the canards. It rather narrows the approach lift coefficient gap to
modestly swept deltas or trapezoids.

The approach angles are still gnarly (c.f. Rafale) and it's a question about engine surge capability
at that angle if you need to go around etc.
Last edited by marauder2048 on 13 Oct 2020, 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1509
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 19:51

AFAIK there has never been a high sweep delta carrier aircraft.


This doesn't qualify? And it had the poor engine off idle response of the J-57.
Attachments
f4d.jpg
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1410
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post13 Oct 2020, 20:15

And the NAVAIR did test the X-31 (delta-canard with TVC).

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2004-5026

VECTOR Program starts at Pax River

Submitted by TEAM Public Affairs

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, Patuxent River, Md. – A joint two-year U.S./German test program using thrust vectoring to develop short takeoff and landing capabilities using the X-31 thrust vectoring technology demonstrator began here recently.

The Vectoring Extremely Short Take-Off and Landing Control Tailless Operation Research program is a low-cost, highly leveraged approach to developing and demonstrating thrust vectoring and supporting technologies to enable complete flight control/engine/thrust vectoring integration for ESTOL and tailless flight.

The Navy is particularly interested in thrust vectoring benefits in its unique take-off and landing environment. Germany is interested in the integrated FCS design and a major supporting technology, an Advanced Air Data System, which provides accurate air data information throughout the AoA range. Current systems develop inaccuracies at high AoA.

VECTOR is a follow-on to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)/Navy/German X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability (EFM) program completed in 1995. The EFM program, flying the only international X-plane at the time, conducted 580 flights, more than any other X-plane program. EFM explored the tactical utility of post-stall maneuvering using thrust vectoring for air combat.

The X-31 demonstrated outstanding controllability and agility over a range of flight conditions with the aircraft flying at very high nose up attitudes - angles of attack (AoA) greater than stall (up to 70 degrees) by using thrust vectoring. The use of thrust vectoring control integrated with the flight control system (FCS) provided safe, departure-free close-in combat maneuvering throughout the conventional and post-stall flight envelopes.

In previous testing, the X-31 provided data for air combat maneuvering. In this program, however, the aircraft will be exploring thrust vectoring technology in the take off and landing environment. In that flight regime, thrust-vectoring technologies have potentially significant pay-off in a number of critical areas, including operational capability, performance, safety, vehicle complexity, maintenance, and total cost of ownership.

Simulated tailless X-31 flight tests conducted for the Joint Strike Fighter program successfully provided an initial demonstration that thrust vectoring could provide yaw control and, thus, reduce or eliminate the need for an aircraft vertical tail.

The capability of thrust vectoring to control and maneuver the X-31 at very slow speeds near the ground was demonstrated during the 1995 Paris Air Show.

The program will be administered through a joint US/German program office located here. In contrast to other program teams located here, the VECTOR Product Team brings together representatives of multiple engineering disciplines, as well as representatives from Boeing, DASA and the German government in one office.

VECTOR at a glance:

The VECTOR Program will develop and demonstrate three technology areas

ESTOL using thrust vectoring control
Advanced Air Data System (AADS)
Tailless/reduced vertical tail configurations
Potential pay-offs for such technologies and concepts include:

ESTOL
Reduced takeoff and landing distances/speeds
Basing flexibility for expeditionary fields or damaged runway operations
Reduced carrier catapult/arresting gear demands or reduced wind over deck requirements
Higher payload bring back and asymmetric stores loading capability
Reduced life cycle cost of arresting gear and catapults
Reduced airframe fatigue life expenditure
AADS for tactical aircraft provides improved air data at high angles of attack or low airspeeds and reduced radar cross-section (RCS).
Tailless/reduced vertical tail configurations reduce aircraft weight, drag and radar cross section (RCS), while providing increased range and/or payload.
**** snip ****


https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/3061
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests