reply to post by bekod
that is 72,900lbs take off weight, at 61ft 9in in length and wing span of 64ft, this bird flew just fine off carriers now compare to the J20,
there is not that much difference,so i say yes this bird the J20 is carrier based,
There is considerable difference between the two airframes. The J-20 is going to be more similar in mass to the F-111, which was abandoned by the
Navy because of weight and thrust constraints. Granted - engine thrust/weight have improved considerably over the years, but designs including
internal munitions bays tend to get prohibitively heavy. "Stealth" airframes also tend to run quite a bit heavier than traditional counterparts.
The airframe in those pictures would need considerable revisions before it could be made carrier-capable. I'm not going to say that they have no
ambitions of making a naval version of this aircraft - but -every- aircraft in use on a carrier is specifically designed for carrier use. Take the
Sukhoi designs - every one of them that operates on a carrier was designed specifically to operate off of a carrier. A few were adapted from mainland
use to naval variants, and ended up looking and operating like a completely different aircraft.
The U.S. has typically shied away from creating naval variants of non-naval aircraft. They will take a naval airframe and create a land-based
airframe out of it, but it's a considerably different thing to make a naval aircraft out of a land-based airframe.
The F-14 came out of the F-111. Case-in-point.
and in the fact that they are working on there own Nimitz class carrier, look that up China's new Carrier, add the two together and we have
the possibility of a new Pearl Harbor.
Even the Nimitz would have difficulty handling an aircraft of this weight. The Navy passed up the Naval F-22 variants for a number of reasons - one
of which was weight concerns. The other was probably because the Navy passed corrosion control training and realized magnesium panels on a
carbon-based composite airframe was the sign of a failure of a design team. (meant to be a little satire).
You would need to extend the catapult (longer stroke) and use electromagnetic acceleration for more precise control. With heavier airframes, the
problem isn't so much what the steam catapult can deliver in terms of power, but how much stress is exerted on the components when trying to
accelerate large masses. You have greater control over this with electromagnetic acceleration, and can actually hit higher velocities while exerting
less stress on the airframe.
But for heavier aircraft with higher stall speeds (like 'stealth' aircraft) would require a longer stroke.
When that's not an issue - landing is. While taking off has the assistance of the forward velocity of the carrier and the thrust of the engines,
you, now, have to take all of that force and route it through an arrestor hook and cable. Stopping a heavy, slow-moving cargo aircraft is
considerably less taxing than stopping a somewhat lighter, but much faster fighter. Fighters tend to have higher stall-speeds and need to be moving
substantially faster to keep from falling out of the sky. E=1/2MxV^2 - wing-loading and meager low-subsonic performance plagues fighter designs,
especially the "stealthy" variety.
I'm not saying they can't do it - but they will have to make some considerable adjustments.
That and with there new weapons, they could have the Pacific Ocean all to them selves.
They wish. They don't have the economy to support such a large fleet. They are already dealing with civil unrest, under-employment/unemployment,
and a population collapse. They are looking at having to support more retirees per working individual than the U.S. - and that's a truly frightening
prospect. The baby-boomers helped considerably in making the U.S. economy as powerful as it was - and now their retirement is going to bust the whole
system (no thanks to abuse of the system and unauthorized spending).
Technologically speaking, they are a generation or more behind us. They are catching up - but China couldn't begin to match the U.S. in naval
superiority for another twenty years. It takes considerable long-term investment to build a large navy - most of what we have has been built up over
the course of thirty years or more. They simply don't have the necessity or the means to challenge U.S. Naval superiority. Most of what they are
doing now is geared towards their arms-race with India.
Not to mention that the carrier they are 'building' is a retrofit of a Soviet-era vessel. They simply do not have the experience the U.S. has in
building ships - we've been doing it since the dawn of this country and has the most modern naval combat experience. We go so far as to test and
simulate various types of damage on the hull and design compartments to slow flood rates and allow for more effective damage control. They have made
leaps and bounds in their industrial capability - but they are still decades behind us in regards to in-house design of anything.
yes i do agree that there is a striking resemblance to the F35, and the J20, just how did China do this?I wonder????
The same way they do just about anything. Become some of the best damned patent violators this side of Alpha Centauri. I know a few people will get
fairly upset about me saying this, but almost all of China's "in house" designs are clones, or altered clones, of products made elsewhere. One of
a company's largest expenses is in the design and development stage - many companies will race to complete a product ahead of each other, just to
enjoy a few months of exclusive market share. China invests heavily in industrial espionage and has a network of informants and 'hackers' that take
the work other companies have done and apply it to their own industry.
In a sense - this is much how a lot of countries start off. The U.S. had some huge ship-building industries going on in the colonial times due to our
vast timber resources. Most of those were essentially clones of existing designs (though this was just about the way everyone built them). Korea has
LG and Samsung making cars that are almost part-for-part clones of various models from around the world. It's frustrating for those in industry -
but it's part of the game.
A number of reports indicated that China had gotten away with some classified documents regarding the F-35. While the notion was denied by the
administration at the time - I would wager that this really was the case, and China has had just about enough time to go over those documents and
start cranking out a prototype.
reply to post by tommyjo
The Chinese are building their own variant of a naval Su-27 Flanker. This is the J-15. This is a copy of the Su-33 Flanker D currently used by
the Russian Navy. The Chinese already build their own land based Su-27 variants much to the annoyance of Russia. This will be the type deployed on the
ex-Varyag carrier currently being fitted out.
Obviously, if they are building a carrier, they would make something to fly off of it. There is a difference between having a carrier, however, and
being ready to project power in any meaningful way with it. They will spend about five to ten years learning a lot of lessons from this new adventure
they are embarking on before they will really be ready to look at expanding their carrier fleet or trying to conduct many operations.
Remember - this is a new thing for them. When we join the military, we are trained by people who know what they are doing (usually) and have a pretty
good understanding of what is efficient and what isn't (with regards to operations). At some point in history, we were new at it, too - and it will
be quite a while before they are ready to do much of anything with the new things they are building. They'll get out to sea, tear some stuff up, and
have to go back and figure out how to prevent that from happening.
They can develop their J-15 - but it would make very little sense for them to try and develop this "J-20" for an entire role they are completely
unfamiliar with. Once they get the hang of using a carrier, they may venture into trying to design a low-observable airframe suited to carrier
operations. It just doesn't make any sense to do so at the moment, as they would be trying to rid themselves of both Low-Observable and Carrier-ops
virginities at the same time. Generally, mixing two first-time experiences is a bad idea.