J-10 go on carrier

www.xffw.com...
I think double front wheel and canard prove that J-10 is the best fighter in China to adapt to go on carrier. I am also glade to see what reason prove it does not to go on carrier.
www.xffw.com...

That doesn't necessarily mean that it will be a good carrier plane. You have to look at a lot of factors, especially with carriers like the Varyag. Weight is a HUGE factor on what can and can't land on the carrier. You have to have a catapult with enough power to throw the plane off the deck with enough speed for them to get airborne, with a full combat loadout.

Compare with Su-27K, J-10's distance of taking-off is enough short to take off form Varyag or other such big carrier. Double front-wheels also means that ctapult is not necessary. Have you ever seen Su-27K take off using catapult? Su-27K weight almost 19tons, but J-10 is half of it. So the T/W rate is enough, plus the canard with delta wing layout has more lift coefficient.

Those aren't the only considerations to take into account. You have to look at so many other things. You have to be able to make the landing gear strong enough to withstand landing on a carrier, which is going to add a LOT of weight to the plane. To counter that you need to add more thrust, which means bigger engines, which means more weight. Just having a plane that is lighter than another carrier plane, and has a better T/W ratio doesn't automatically mean that it's going to make a good carrier plane. The F-111 fit your profile for a good carrier plane, but it was WAY too heavy when they finished modifying it for carrier operations. And that was operating off Nimitz class full deck carriers with steam catapults.

Sorry, but these pictures were discussed some days ago in several Chinese forums and judged definitly as a FAKE !!!

Cheers, Deino

Well, if you know Chinese, please tell me where you had seen that is a fake.

The F-111 came aboard just fine according to contractor (Grumman, not GD) testpilots who flew it. The F-14 was and will always remain a comparitive pig-on-rollerskates on approach with terrible 'wallow' in couple manuver modes. The F-18 solves for directionality problems by virtue of flung-brick approach speeds and sink rates which directly effects it's ability to be a warfighter.

Don't let the Navy's PRBS 'official lie must be true' approach to historical revisionism sway your ability to make up your own mind until after you have read the book _Illusions Of Choice_. They didn't want an AF plane and said as much. They therefore rigged every OPEVAL test they could to fail the airframe 'on the letter not the trend' of spec'd performance. And when even that didn't work thanks to some outstanding aeronautical design on the part of the high lift system, they simply delayed the carrier trials until after they coud bad-moth a perfectly effective FADF into Congressional Cancellaton BEFORE the facts were known.

Had they done this in the 1980's instead of the 1970's, they would have been sued on a 'for the convenience of the government' basis of fraud in the inducement and anti-deficiency act violations, just as the A-12 SPO was. And GD would have won.

That said, the J-10 has a narrow track, short wheel based, landing gear with fully half the jet and those massive ventral tails 'sticking out', aft of the mains. Add to this the separate inlet without it's own carry through structure as an excuse to ram the NLG strut up through the roof on a high descent rate and you have a jet which, from the get go, is not what I would call 'carrier suitable'.

I would have to study it more carefully to be sure but I think the already nose-high stance and long, conical, radome may also effect view of the deck when you crank it up to control scatter and sink on a naval approach.

If the J-10 has any particular advantage it is that it is cheap. Which makes air admirals into accountants for choosing one engine vs. two in an overwater jet. Whereby the price of Chinese life is so cheap that they would rather pay a death benefit than the cost of redundant (two of everything) maintenance and lost deckspots inherent to a larger twin.


KPl.

Yes, all you said is quite correct! But all of what I mean just is that J-10 is the only option to be a fighter which can landing on carrier just need some refit I think. Think about Russia carrier carry such little fighter, I don't think PLA will adopt Su-27K.

There doesn't seem to be anything which screams fake to me but these photos are hardly conclusive evidence that they're operating J-10s off carriers.

Where did the photos come from? How were they debunked on the chinese forums?

It's just because someone found the original picture without that mystery aircraft !

www.sinodefenceforum.com...

1st ... the original without



... and 2nd with !





Sorry, esp. as I'm one of the "few" who really wish to see a navalised J-10 !

cheers, Deino

Could you post the link that claims they are fake? thanks

I do agree it does look added, just want the link so everyone can see it.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by SpittinCobra]

Here from post 577 and so on ...

www.sinodefenceforum.com...


Deino

It isn't directly an unexpected thing to happend... I still think that it is far from being as agile and fast as the Super Hornet and the F-35

On the subject about Chinese carrier aviation..
Have they even got that hunk of junk carrier to run?

home.att.net...

thats the navy who tried to land it

i debunked this last year and will do so again.

the USS Coral Sea was the test ship and the tests were a disaster - the aircraft had the highest `nose up` angle of any carrier aircraft before or since on landing - the pilot couldn`t actually SEE the deck as he came in on finals!

[extwww.f-111.net...[/ext]


and take off? at best the cat was at 110% load to get the aircraft off the deck , so underpowered it was.

[ext]http://www.f-111.net/t_no_B_files/carrier_tof.gif[/ext]

No, .... the Varyag was delivered without engines installed.

Deino