Jump to content

Little Flying Dragons Of China


JasonJ

Recommended Posts

 

The PRC doesn't really need additional strike assets (IMO). It seems to me the primary role of PLANs CVWs will be CAP, in which case long range would be nice but not altogether useful: if you're stuck to helo AWACS platform that can only see out to ~150km, then you're CAP isn't going to be able to venture too far from formation its covering anyway. I don't think J-20 brings much to the table as an interceptor without a fixed wing AWAC platform in support.

If they're operating in the South China Sea then couldn't they have land based AWACS support?

 

Then why not used land based fighters? All that would be necessary was a sufficiently large tanker force or forward island basing, one of which they have and the other is far easier to establish than a carrier capability. Inside the first island chain a CV brings nothing to the table that the Chinese couldn't do with land based air. Its just a pricy target. Their long term goal I believe is to have a CSG capable of operating out of area, something their land based assets can't effectively do without minimally crossing another country's airspace or ADIZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 554
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There will never be any time in the future that a Chinese aircraft carrier will be able to safely operate anywhere at sea - close to China or not - if at war with the United States.

I would agree with that. If a Chinese D/E is a threat to USN CVs, US nuke boats are a death sentence to PLAN CVs. And soon the B-1 fleet will be able to spit out AShMs like a pez dispenser. But China has interests and competitors outside of countries that the US has direct defense treaties with, most notably India. Being able to sail a CV in the IO and defend it from the Indians is a real goal they could achieve medium term IMO.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PRC doesn't really need additional strike assets (IMO). It seems to me the primary role of PLANs CVWs will be CAP, in which case long range would be nice but not altogether useful: if you're stuck to helo AWACS platform that can only see out to ~150km, then you're CAP isn't going to be able to venture too far from formation its covering anyway. I don't think J-20 brings much to the table as an interceptor without a fixed wing AWAC platform in support.

Do you mean to remain stealthy they need to not emit and get directions from AWAC ? I think there is a potential problem here because AWAC are going to possibly be too vulnerable (due to long rang AAM etc.) to get close enough to pick up stealthy targets anyway. I think doing CAP half blind is going to be unavoidable, hence the case for some semi-expandable recon drones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There will never be any time in the future that a Chinese aircraft carrier will be able to safely operate anywhere at sea - close to China or not - if at war with the United States.

I would agree with that. If a Chinese D/E is a threat to USN CVs, US nuke boats are a death sentence to PLAN CVs. And soon the B-1 fleet will be able to spit out AShMs like a pez dispenser. But China has interests and competitors outside of countries that the US has direct defense treaties with, most notably India. Being able to sail a CV in the IO and defend it from the Indians is a real goal they could achieve medium term IMO.

Not that i disagree re then life expectancy of any .cn CV. The threat of sams AShM cspabilty hasn't worried any peer/near peer adversary since well forever...

 

Tiny little sub sonic harpoons have and will never be relevant

 

Edit missed the "soon" bit. AGM158c should be in service "soon" to provide sam with a relevant conventional AShM capability

Edited by Tranquil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harpoon is old and not as effective as it once was, but I think they still have relevance for at least a decade or so. A volley of old harpoons can still put a cost to anti air defense systems, or even over load the system, so maybe some of a volley may still pass through and score a hit and enable other air assets to move such Ospreys, F-18s, or what have you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The PRC doesn't really need additional strike assets (IMO). It seems to me the primary role of PLANs CVWs will be CAP, in which case long range would be nice but not altogether useful: if you're stuck to helo AWACS platform that can only see out to ~150km, then you're CAP isn't going to be able to venture too far from formation its covering anyway. I don't think J-20 brings much to the table as an interceptor without a fixed wing AWAC platform in support.

Do you mean to remain stealthy they need to not emit and get directions from AWAC ? I think there is a potential problem here because AWAC are going to possibly be too vulnerable (due to long rang AAM etc.) to get close enough to pick up stealthy targets anyway. I think doing CAP half blind is going to be unavoidable, hence the case for some semi-expandable recon drones.

 

My thought was that unless you can detect threats far out or have a very clear single threat axis, you can't really send your CAP down range away from the CV formation. IE, I can't put my CAP 300km out to the North East if I potentially also have a threat from the West and I can't see past 150km.* If I have reduced warning time of air threats and they may come from multiple directions, my CAP has to be closer and closer to the CV to defend it and range becomes less of an issue than sortie rate. And a smaller fighter would probably allow for more to be carried or at least more room to move a/c around the ship to generate more CAP sorties.

 

That was my logic.

 

*EDIT: For clarity, I understand that a CAP doesn't all fly at one location. My point was just that trying to fight the 'outer battle' without AWACs will leave gaps in your CAP coverage unless you have a very narrow front from which you can expect the enemy to approach.

Edited by Josh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit missed the "soon" bit. AGM158c should be in service "soon" to provide sam with a relevant conventional AShM capability

Soon is within the coming year, yes. AGM-158C can be carried 24 at a time by a B-1, has a 300km+ range, accepts satellite updates, and has a low RCS with completely passive guidance. A pair of B-1s would be a significant threat to any formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harpoon is old and not as effective as it once was, but I think they still have relevance for at least a decade or so. A volley of old harpoons can still put a cost to anti air defense systems, or even over load the system, so maybe some of a volley may still pass through and score a hit and enable other air assets to move such Ospreys, F-18s, or what have you.

Not against a well defended target. First of all, most US ships don't carry it and US bombers don't at all. Second, how many F-18s would it take to put a credible strike against a single Aegis like AD system? A dozen? Two? Also does your typical CVN even keep Harpoons on board in those kind of numbers?

 

A strike with HARMs followed up my Mavericks would probably have a much better chance of succeeding than that out of date missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Harpoon is old and not as effective as it once was, but I think they still have relevance for at least a decade or so. A volley of old harpoons can still put a cost to anti air defense systems, or even over load the system, so maybe some of a volley may still pass through and score a hit and enable other air assets to move such Ospreys, F-18s, or what have you.

Not against a well defended target. First of all, most US ships don't carry it and US bombers don't at all. Second, how many F-18s would it take to put a credible strike against a single Aegis like AD system? A dozen? Two? Also does your typical CVN even keep Harpoons on board in those kind of numbers?

 

A strike with HARMs followed up my Mavericks would probably have a much better chance of succeeding than that out of date missile.

 

 

Fair enough, didn't realize that the Burke flight IIAs didn't install them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The PRC doesn't really need additional strike assets (IMO). It seems to me the primary role of PLANs CVWs will be CAP, in which case long range would be nice but not altogether useful: if you're stuck to helo AWACS platform that can only see out to ~150km, then you're CAP isn't going to be able to venture too far from formation its covering anyway. I don't think J-20 brings much to the table as an interceptor without a fixed wing AWAC platform in support.

Do you mean to remain stealthy they need to not emit and get directions from AWAC ? I think there is a potential problem here because AWAC are going to possibly be too vulnerable (due to long rang AAM etc.) to get close enough to pick up stealthy targets anyway. I think doing CAP half blind is going to be unavoidable, hence the case for some semi-expandable recon drones.

 

My thought was that unless you can detect threats far out or have a very clear single threat axis, you can't really send your CAP down range away from the CV formation. IE, I can't put my CAP 300km out to the North East if I potentially also have a threat from the West and I can't see past 150km.* If I have reduced warning time of air threats and they may come from multiple directions, my CAP has to be closer and closer to the CV to defend it and range becomes less of an issue than sortie rate. And a smaller fighter would probably allow for more to be carried or at least more room to move a/c around the ship to generate more CAP sorties.

 

That was my logic.

 

*EDIT: For clarity, I understand that a CAP doesn't all fly at one location. My point was just that trying to fight the 'outer battle' without AWACs will leave gaps in your CAP coverage unless you have a very narrow front from which you can expect the enemy to approach.

 

Sure, but endurance will still help as you can reduce the demand on the runways, and have more on patrol and less in transit or refueling etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Probably J-16

J-16.jpg

Semi-serpent inlets? Interesting...

 

 

All Flanker inlet ducts are like that:

 

 

Flanker air intakes are very old-school. They're big, rectilinear boxes with variable-geometry diffuser assemblies for optimizing pressure recovery over a wide range of mach numbers. This was a popular intake design in the 1970s, the F-15, MiG-25 and F-14 have similar intakes.

 

The slight kink you see there has to do with something more prosaic than stealth. It might be that's how the transition from the rectangular section of the intake to the round face of the engine has to be shaped. It might be area-ruling too; coke-bottle fuselage area-ruling is 1950s tech. Newer designs are usually area-ruled by adjusting the contours of wing/fuselage blends or things like that. It might be a clearance for the landing gear. Might be some combination of the above.

 

But it's almost certainly not stealth. Sukhoi wasn't thinking about stealth-ing up their air intake designs in the 1970s, or else they wouldn't have put so many 90 degree angles in them.

Edited by Loopycrank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The PRC doesn't really need additional strike assets (IMO). It seems to me the primary role of PLANs CVWs will be CAP, in which case long range would be nice but not altogether useful: if you're stuck to helo AWACS platform that can only see out to ~150km, then you're CAP isn't going to be able to venture too far from formation its covering anyway. I don't think J-20 brings much to the table as an interceptor without a fixed wing AWAC platform in support.

Do you mean to remain stealthy they need to not emit and get directions from AWAC ? I think there is a potential problem here because AWAC are going to possibly be too vulnerable (due to long rang AAM etc.) to get close enough to pick up stealthy targets anyway. I think doing CAP half blind is going to be unavoidable, hence the case for some semi-expandable recon drones.

 

My thought was that unless you can detect threats far out or have a very clear single threat axis, you can't really send your CAP down range away from the CV formation. IE, I can't put my CAP 300km out to the North East if I potentially also have a threat from the West and I can't see past 150km.* If I have reduced warning time of air threats and they may come from multiple directions, my CAP has to be closer and closer to the CV to defend it and range becomes less of an issue than sortie rate. And a smaller fighter would probably allow for more to be carried or at least more room to move a/c around the ship to generate more CAP sorties.

 

That was my logic.

 

*EDIT: For clarity, I understand that a CAP doesn't all fly at one location. My point was just that trying to fight the 'outer battle' without AWACs will leave gaps in your CAP coverage unless you have a very narrow front from which you can expect the enemy to approach.

 

Also you can do more then one CAP at a time surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider a CAP the entire element that is airborne at any one time. So there would presumably be multiple flights in different positions around a CV, depending on the likely threat axis(s). But without long range radar coverage, I wouldn't want to put them that far from the CV less targets get past the defensive aircraft and launch their attacks before they can be engaged. I'd rather have more fighters than longer range in that scenario, but longer range would also translate to longer time in the air. There would definitely be a point at which the larger aircraft would be a better choice depending on the sortie rate and sortie duration.

 

I suppose the real driver of which aircraft gets adopted would likely be low speed performance for arrested recovery more than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Flanker inlet ducts are like that:

 

Flanker air intakes are very old-school. They're big, rectilinear boxes with variable-geometry diffuser assemblies for optimizing pressure recovery over a wide range of mach numbers. This was a popular intake design in the 1970s, the F-15, MiG-25 and F-14 have similar intakes.

 

The slight kink you see there has to do with something more prosaic than stealth. It might be that's how the transition from the rectangular section of the intake to the round face of the engine has to be shaped. It might be area-ruling too; coke-bottle fuselage area-ruling is 1950s tech. Newer designs are usually area-ruled by adjusting the contours of wing/fuselage blends or things like that. It might be a clearance for the landing gear. Might be some combination of the above.

 

But it's almost certainly not stealth. Sukhoi wasn't thinking about stealth-ing up their air intake designs in the 1970s, or else they wouldn't have put so many 90 degree angles in them.

 

First - no, other T-10 platforms doesn't have this intakes curve. Second - with such intakes rotor blades would be partially covered. By how much - hard to say by this pic, and vertical curve is unknown. Paired with blochers this can provide pretty neat RCS reduction, albeit most other parts doesn't show any RCS reduction measures footprints. Stabilizers are still vertical. Curve might be connetted with engine change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

All Flanker inlet ducts are like that:

 

Flanker air intakes are very old-school. They're big, rectilinear boxes with variable-geometry diffuser assemblies for optimizing pressure recovery over a wide range of mach numbers. This was a popular intake design in the 1970s, the F-15, MiG-25 and F-14 have similar intakes.

 

The slight kink you see there has to do with something more prosaic than stealth. It might be that's how the transition from the rectangular section of the intake to the round face of the engine has to be shaped. It might be area-ruling too; coke-bottle fuselage area-ruling is 1950s tech. Newer designs are usually area-ruled by adjusting the contours of wing/fuselage blends or things like that. It might be a clearance for the landing gear. Might be some combination of the above.

 

But it's almost certainly not stealth. Sukhoi wasn't thinking about stealth-ing up their air intake designs in the 1970s, or else they wouldn't have put so many 90 degree angles in them.

 

First - no, other T-10 platforms doesn't have this intakes curve. Second - with such intakes rotor blades would be partially covered. By how much - hard to say by this pic, and vertical curve is unknown. Paired with blochers this can provide pretty neat RCS reduction, albeit most other parts doesn't show any RCS reduction measures footprints. Stabilizers are still vertical. Curve might be connetted with engine change.

 

 

No. Just no. Look, I get it, you read one article about the S-ducts in the F-22, and you think you know everything now. But you're wrong.

 

The air intakes on the SU-27 family have always been slightly kinked:

 

0wqt9iy.png

 

Furthermore, that level of curvature would not prevent radar waves from reflecting off of the compressor blades. Actual S-ducts are more complicated than that. Radar waves of different frequencies end up reflecting and bending in different ways through the ducts, so different sorts of RAM coating have to be placed in the ducts depending on where the different frequencies tend to pile up. All this while maintaining undistorted airflow to the engine at different airspeeds, altitudes and angles of attack. It's the sort of system that has so many contradicting requirements that it almost has to be designed all at once. As it is, airframes and air intakes are already closely integrated systems. Simply modifying an existing air intake system to improve stealth is unlikely to give tactically significant improvements. Remember that radar detection range is not a linear function of RCS.

 

And even if you were to slap some half-assed curves into the intake and a radar blocker, how much difference could it make? The entire front of the air intake is made of ninety degree retroreflectors!

Edited by Loopycrank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand variable geometry intakes are impossible to work into a very low RCS design. The B-1 and F-22 delete them at the expense of performance envelope at different altitudes.

 

That is the consensus among US and Chinese designers. All the new Chinese stealth designs sport air intakes that are suspiciously similar to the F-35's. Curiously, the SU-57 is supposed to have variable-geometry inlets. Whether the Russians found a way to make their VG inlets acceptably radar-proof or whether they just accepted a trade-off in stealth in order to get better flight performance is unclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...