Jump to content
tanknet.org

Second Chinese Carrier


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The second carrier is currently doing sea trials. AFAIK, only a helicopter has landed on it so far. So it still has a lot of trials to do until it becomes fully operational with a full load of fighter aircraft.

 

The 3rd carrier is believed to be under an early stage of construction, the stage in which hull modules are being created. At some point, the modules will appear, likely at Jiangnan shipyard, and the assemble of the ship hull would then begin. There have been reports that the 3rd carrier started construction in 2015, so hull assembly at the dry dock might begin within a year. The third carrier is supposed to not feature a ski jump but instead use catapults, either steam or EMALs. It won't be nuclear powered. A 4th carrier has been stated to be planned, likely to be similar to the third. In the 2025-2030 year period, assuming the current trajectory, they will probably have 4 carriers. As for long term, I recall statements saying they will go up to 5 or 6 carriers in the end, with the last ones being nuclear powered.

 

As far as aircraft for the carriers go, there's been talk about a competition for either a carrier version of the J-20 or of the J-31 (or FC-31), but there has been no indications of actual development about that. There have been some pictures of a J-15D in yellow which is the normal color for aircraft in development. The J-15D is supposed to be an electronic warfare version of the J-15, something like the EA-18G. As for AEW aircraft, they built a test-bed aircraft about a decade ago. And they often have mock versions of an AEW aircraft on top of the mock carrier land building. So I would have to imagine that they have such an aircraft planned or under development that would probably start to come to the surface by the time the third carrier approaches sea trials.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

The J-20 is completely unsuitable for carrier use. The J-30 would work if it's low speed handling characteristics are sufficient. It might need wider wings a la F-35C.

 

In any case the lack of AEW is their major short coming, but first they have to have a CV with cats for that to be a surmountable problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The cover story on Jane's Defense Weekly (23 May 2018) is probably old news, but relates the following:

 

  • Initial sea trials [sailed on 13 May] were likely for propulsion, ship handling and ship safety systems; crew training and familiarization.
  • Chinese have not named the ship but refered to it as the Type 001A during construction.
  • The ship was floated out of dry dock only 54 weeks earlier, so the sea trials are impressive by that alone [The British QE dates ere July 2014-June 2017 by comparison].
  • Slated to operate J-15 in a STO mode using the ramp, with arrested recovery.
  • Most differences from previous CV Liaoning are phased arrar radar Type 346 same as latest PLAN destroyers. Island is one story higher and slightly shorter than the first CV.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like the J-20 would absolutely require catapults for launch, at least with a full fuel and internal war load, and I would have thought that wing configuration would not have great low speed handling characteristics. Where do those images come from? Someplace reputable or just fanboi stuff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The carrier SINKEX's may come in handy... nice to know those stately ladies might not have died in vain.

Nice to know that we have 'way more experience sinking carriers than they do.

Edited by shep854
Link to post
Share on other sites

A lengthy post that argues that the J-20 is more suitable then the FC-31. Some main points; still smaller than J-15, range of J-20 needed to intercept against long range platforms thus more suitable than J-31, some techie physics stuff than claim the design is still suitable enough for carrier ops, and so on. It argues that FC-31 would be inferior to F-35 so better to go with J-20 for the carrier aircraft design. Subject to google translate of course. Just putting it up.

 

 

 

不请自来,我是来粉碎网络上各种歼20不能上舰,FC31有舰载机设计的神论的。作为大载弹大航程,拥有完备电子设备,能超巡和超机动的重型五代机,单架歼20的对空作战效能至少为单架FC31的3倍,对地对海效能至少是2倍,也就是说如果某些人嘴里的中型机尺寸小能多放几架的理论成立的话,在同一条航母上全部塞FC31的数量必须为歼20的两倍或者以上,并且甲板能运作的单一攻击波数量也得是歼20的两倍以上才行……自己找下这两款机型的尺寸,用脚趾头都能算出来这是不可能的…… 而且,咱先不说目前以及未来都缺乏先进发动机,设计中庸,空战和对地对海攻击能力都一般的FC31降配舰载版,能不能怼得过美日韩等国航母和两栖舰上的F35B/C。就说这种没有超巡能力、空战截击作战半径800公里左右的玩意,真要上舰的话,面对搭载射程500公里以上 LRASM的美军轰炸机,能否在其发起饱和攻击前有效截击都是个巨大的问题。如果真把FC31搞成舰载机,那重金打造的中国航母编队,在美国人眼里和一堆人工鱼礁也没有什么区别了。 这样也不难理解,所谓FC31上舰也就是战忽局几位大佬带着一群不明真相的群众在鼓吹,真正指挥部队的主,比如以前的吴司令,可是多次表示做梦都想要大航程超巡舰载战斗机啊。闲话休提,下边是需要粉碎的谣言1、 J20是鸭翼加三角翼布局,不适合上舰?达索厂阵风M表示:喵喵喵喵喵?

常规布局的三角翼飞机,比如mig21,J8II之类的,的确是强调了超音速降阻而劣化了亚音速升阻比和低速性能。但是对于鸭式布局的飞机来说,这并不成立。由于鸭式布局主翼位置更加接近飞机后部,因此主翼的升力中心更加接近重心,可以使用更大面积的翼面产生足够的升力,而不用过分担心升力矩的配平问题。同时前方鸭翼翼尖产生的涡流可以通过整个主翼的上表面,进一步降低主翼上部压力从而达到增升的效果。这一点在战机处于盘旋的时候更为明显,因此鸭式布局的飞机通常都拥有较好的低速操纵性与升力系数,这也是舰载机所必须满足的性能要求。实际上最开始大面积使用鸭式布局的瑞典,就是因为强调在机场遭到空袭时,战机可以从残存的跑道或者滑行道上短距起飞,以此要求设计的。

对鸭式布局低速操纵性没有概念的小朋友,建议找找八一老爷的表演视频,其中有一个表演科目就是大迎角低速通场。J10作为一款强调高速截击的战机,能开到那么慢,本身就是其升力和低速操纵性的展示。

J20作为典型的鸭式布局战机,除了原有的鸭翼增升外,还利用边条等进一步产生涡流,增加整机升力,因此低速升阻比和升力系数相当可观。即使其采用了小展弦比大后掠角的三角主翼(其实应该算梯形翼的),但是由于通过多手段增升,因此其升力系数较高,在低速状态下也不至于失速。 虽然航展表演中没有进行低速通场展示,但是也可以推测其低速飞行和操控性能比J10还好,也不会比同样采用鸭式布局的舰载机阵风M差,因此就起降性能而言,目前J20上舰完全没有任何障碍。

高卢人的阵风M的相对于空军版的阵风,完全没有做扩大翼面之类的修改,就已经能很好满足其起降要求。因此J20要改舰载版也不需要对气动进行大幅度的修改,悲观估计也只是略微增加翼展和减少后掠角,这无疑可以极大降低其研发难度。同时由于气动没有太大变化,因此改舰载不会造成太大的性能削弱,五代机最为关键的超巡和超机动性能可以得到保留,这对于舰载J20的战斗力无疑是一个利好消息。2、 美国海军也没有用F22上舰而是用F35中型机,所以中国五代舰载机应该是中型机?/俄国目前在用mig29k代替su33,说明舰载机中型更好? 首先美帝海军表示,宝宝心里苦,但宝宝还是要说出来:我当时明明要的是NATF项目啊,你国会老爷给我个破F35C几个意思啊?

恩,看看这个对比图就知道了,海军要的NATF基本上就是F22那个尺寸,机头就是F22直接扒皮下来的,后半截更像是F14大猫的可变后掠翼结构。毕竟五代舰载机又要满足超巡和超音速机动性能,又要满足低速起降性能,原来四代舰载的常规布局,比如超级虫的大边条加大展弦比翼面,就无法满足这两者的需求,因此只能祭出大猫那个可变后掠翼了。考虑到F22是最大起飞重量38吨的重型机,海军这个NATF只会比这个更重。但是为了保证舰队的防空、以及有效截击苏联对舰突击的轰炸机,和对岸攻击时的制空,多复杂也得要啊。至于F35C虽然是F35A的底子改过来,但是翼面积增加了48%,翼展增加了2.41米,全机空重增加到了15.5吨的水平,最大起飞重量差不多有32吨。虽然看着还是一台发动机推的中型机,实际上已经完全达到了重型机的重量水平。

当然这样大幅度增加翼展和重量带来的空战性能的劣化也是相当严重的,即使那台发动机是天顶星F119改过来的也推不动,空战推比显著降低到0.9以下,不算隐身的话,基本上大部分四代机都可以吊打他了。仔细看看四代舰载机里边美苏分别用的F14和SU33就知道了,舰队防空和截击还有反舰对陆什么的,还是重型机比较好使。所以一开始五代的NATF也是重型机,遭到屠刀之后的F35C为了满足海军的需求,还是基本变成了重型机。

至于说为啥现在俄国人也在用mig29k替代su33了,只能说,真不是mig29k更加适合。su33因为某个凯子买了的基辅级魔改塞不下,所以没氪金去升级,随着机体老化和设备落后只能退役咯,为了那么一条航母上边二十来架舰载机重开su33的生产线又不值得,加上又拉不下脸来找中国买J15,那只能用某凯子出钱升级过的mig29k啊。3、 J20太大/太重不适合上舰?提出这个说法的人,只能说,要么就是太懒,连百度维基一下都不愿意就人云亦云。要么就是真小学数学课都打瞌睡了。

目前手头上在用的J15,长21.9m,翼展14.7m,高5.9m,折叠后宽大概是8米多一点的样子。而目前在卫星图和参照对比图上量出来的J-20是长20.3m,翼展13m,高4.45m,无论哪个尺寸都比J15小一圈。

即使悲观估计舰载版翼展增加到14米,那也是比J15要小。至于折叠方面,J20可以把鸭翼和主翼都设计成在根部附近折叠的。(啥?有人说三角翼不能折叠?先不说J20不是完全意义上的三角翼,就算是三角翼A12一样叠给你看)J20的双发间距相对于J15要小,加上全动垂尾可以打偏避开折叠的主翼,因此折叠到翼展的一半问题不大,也就是7m左右,这也比J15小。顺带一提,在这样全尺寸都比J15小的情况下,J20翼面积有75平方米以上,比68平米的J15要大多了,这就是鸭翼布局设计的优势所在。既然目前在辽宁舰这种并不科学设计的航母上(主要是库级舰按载机巡洋舰设计的巨坑),J15依然能正常运作,并且塞下超过24架的话,那么换成舰载版本的J20,既然尺寸更小那自然没有啥太大问题。

至于重量,目前J15的空重是17.5吨,最大起飞重量33吨,正常起飞大概27吨的样子。而目前J20指标不大清楚。按悲观估计的空重19吨计算,参考J15相对J11B的空重增加(悲观估计,毕竟J11B本身机体结构强度就差,必须各种修修补补才能满足舰载机起降要求,而有超音速机动要求的J20本身就很结实)1.1吨,阵风m相对阵风增重0.6吨(没有搞折叠翼),综合一下算增重0.9吨,也就是空重19.9吨。这也并不是比J15高太多,估计也没有达到有复杂可变后掠翼机构的NATF的水平。而正常起飞重量方面,按空战截击半油起飞的样子算,也就是加上6吨油和一吨的对空弹药,也就是有27吨的样子,基本上与J15的正常起飞重量数据持平(顺带一提此时的空战推比计算为1.09,相对于原来的1.13,降低幅度不大,而且真要搞舰载J20的时候,估计已经可以用上推力更大的WS15了)。而最大起飞重量方面,计算满油满弹的话40吨的重量的确太吓人,不过舰载机嘛限制下重量也算可以理解,那么正常最大起飞的重量限制在38吨以内也不会有太大影响。而且等用上J20H的时候,早就有电磁弹射的船可以用了,所以起飞重量不是太大问题。

同理降落状态下,目前的阻拦索系统拦下23/24吨的带弹J15是没有压力的,那降落状态的歼20H最多只是比这重一两吨,而且歼20由于升力系数比J15高一大截,很有可能降落速度是比歼15还要低的,这样阻拦索承受的负荷还要更低一点,未来针对舰载机优化的电磁阻拦系统更是可以针对歼20进行优化。因此,所谓J20太大/太重不能上舰,纯粹是无稽之谈。4、 J20太贵不适合上舰?不得不说这样想的人蠢哭了。

是几架舰载机耗钱?还是舰载机太差打不过别人,舰队全军覆没,大批海军精锐喂鱼比较赔钱啊?要换省钱的五代机?比如呢?要换全新研发的五代机吗?考虑到为了可能拥有的航母数量,估计舰载机总体需求数量就没有超过240架,这个数量要搞全新开发的舰载机,把研发和开生产线的费用摊下来,再算上五代机本身高昂的价格,妥妥的比现在什么战机的价格都要贵。至于单机价格更便宜的FC-31。要算等量装备的话的确是要便宜得多的。然而前文已经计算过,要达到同等战斗力水平,要装备的FC-31差不多要比J20多一倍才够,加上舰载机飞行员比陆基飞行员更加值钱,妥妥的比装备J20还贵得多。综上所述,只要未来的中国海军,面对美日韩等国的航母上F35B、F35C的时候,只要不是要龟缩在新世纪的威海卫里,那就要装备五代的舰载机才能满足打赢的需要。那么在众多方案中,全部装备J20舰载版无疑是最省钱的。5、 J20的起落架位置/腹鳍不适合上舰?首先起落架肯定要加强的,任何基于陆基战斗机进行开发的舰载机都会有这个过程,这个不用说了。然后呢,主起落架的位置真的太靠前?腹鳍真的会成为降落的障碍?

首先看一张图片,可以看出,要是真能擦到腹鳍,那么也基本上差不多要擦到发动机喷口了,因此腹鳍的影响并没有想象中的那么大。由于J20采用了大量涡流增升的措施,因此带来的弊端就是机体上方气流复杂,水平方向稳定性差,因此必须设置腹鳍来增加航向稳定性。要讨论腹鳍是否会擦地的问题,首先得了解现代舰载机是怎么着陆的

参考目前正常舰载机,其实在即将着舰的时候,为了保证有效观察甲板的相对位置,以及助降系统的信号,采用的仰角并不是非常大,也就是8度左右的仰角拍上甲板而已,而并不是想象中的大仰角着舰。(和陆基飞机比主要是下降率比较大)。至于起落架位置的问题,还是看三视图比较明显吧。请各位同学拿出你的量角器

按这样测出来,目前的起落架位置要擦到地上,大概仰角要达到14度左右。也就是说正常的8度左右着舰,还有很多富余量啊。

退一步说,为了增加着陆安全性,舰载版把主起落架往后移一点,又有什么关系呢?

为了进一步说明这个问题,我建议看看另外两款机型的三视图。

经典到不能再经典的大猫,居然有很多人眼中是原罪的腹鳍,而且是直接装在发动机吊舱正下方那种!很容易得出这款机型10度的仰角就该擦屁股了。

 

6、 FC-31设计的时候就考虑了舰载?FC-31刚刚出来的时候,有不少人就是看着那个前轮做文章,说什么FC-31本身考虑舰载设计啊什么的,却完全不看原始设计还是模型上,都没有折叠翼和阻拦勾之类的设计,真不知道是故意视而不见还是别有用心。实际上和这样的想法相反,FC-31一开始就是参照F22设计的空优倾向陆基机,并且采取大量措施降低成本好堆数量的存在。而要是想改成舰载机,基本上整个设计都得推倒重来,和重新设计一架没啥区别。首先就是气动布局,FC-31采用的是常规气动布局,升力体机身,主翼接近于F22的42度左右后掠角梯形翼,明显是为了强化超音速巡航性能,降低超音速阻力设计的,其带来的结果就是亚音速升阻比低,低速控制性差,低速状态下容易失速。这气动设计明显是不能满足舰载机起降要求的。从官方数据公布的起降滑跑距离也可以知道,这根本达不到舰载机的水平。

(哦,那个明显注水或者某种极端情况下的作战半径,看着笑笑就好,别当真。毕竟外贸机啊不抬高性能怎么卖)


那么要满足舰载要求得怎么改呢?大概有三个思路。

F22的舰载版本NATF用的是可变后掠翼,来克服超巡和低速操纵性的矛盾。

即使是有优秀中央升力体设计的陆基空优机su27,为了增加起降时的操纵性和升力,在改为su33时也额外增设了前置鸭翼。

而同为五代机的F35,其A型的展弦比已经高于F22,然而仍然不能满足舰载机起降要求,因此其C型整个主翼往外扩一圈,翼面积增加了48%,翼展增加了2.41米,全机空重增加2.6吨,才能在没有改变常规气动布局的情况下满足舰载机要求。考虑到我国没有研制可变后掠翼机型的经验,而三翼面方案飞控设计复杂,而且多次反射可能会比较破坏隐身,因此参考F35C的改法,FC-31要出舰载版的话,同样需要扩大翼面积并且全机增重来满足起降要求。乐观估计的话,参考F35A改到C的样子,则翼展增加22%到14米,后掠角改小而且扩大翼面积。再加上跑不掉的折叠翼、起落架加强、阻拦勾等设计,保守估计增重2.5吨,也就是空战重量加到20吨。按目前能用到最好的9500中推计算,空战推比仅为0.95。虽然没F35C那么惨绝人寰,但是也基本上低于四代机普通水平了。另外由于翼面积增大翼展增加,其超音速阻力剧增,别说超巡,连超音速冲刺能力都要大打折扣,估计极速要降到1.4马赫的水平了。

另外由于F35C翼展大而且尾翼不折叠,因此折叠后仍有9米多宽,就算FC-31的舰载版能够改善折叠方式,但也应该只是折叠到14米的一半,也就是7~8米的水平,无论是翼展还是折叠后的数据都没有比J20更小。另外FC-31在设计的时候参考了F35A的气动舵面设计,主翼面没有采用常规战斗机的襟翼+副翼的设计,而是将襟翼和副翼设计为一体,也就是传说中的襟副翼,从而减少液压筒和相应操纵线路,以此来降低成本。

作为陆基机用的时候,起降需要打开襟翼,而一般不需要做滚转的调整,而在正常飞行时襟副翼用作滚转的控制舵面,这种设计也没有什么问题。但是作为舰载机,在降落的时候必须进行连续的调整,才能正确地降落在摇晃的航母甲板上的指定位置。稍微玩过点航空模拟或者空战游戏的都知道,起降的低速状态基本上都要打开襟翼增加升力的,而采用襟副翼的飞机在开襟翼的状态时,由于其舵面已经向下,即使其可以设计成开襟翼时做左右差动,也无法获得传统副翼产生的滚转灵活性,因此该设计的飞机要是直接改为航母舰载机,其起降安全性是非常堪忧的。美国的F35A用了襟副翼,结果F35C又得改回去变成襟翼+副翼的结构,因而结构飞控等都需要重新设计,拖慢了F35C项目的进度。

因此无论FC-31出的舰载版是怎么样的,要么扩机翼要么搞可变后掠翼要么增加鸭翼边条等措施,而且襟翼这块还得增加气动舵面,这都意味着整机构造都要大幅度修改,结构强度要重新测,飞控软件要重新编写。加上FC31 2.0验证机的状态距离可服役舰载版本还差十万八千里,就算海军肯氪金,国家肯耗费大量资源投入一个难度大而且没啥用的项目,那也得等很长时间才能搞出FC31的舰载版。这么长时间没有五代舰载机,那么就只能靠J15这款四代机挑大梁。而现在美军已经开始装备F35C,日韩等国也在积极谋求进口F35B。面对舰载机的代差,别说打美军航母,恐怕日韩等国的登陆舰准航母起飞的少量F35B都能打得国产航母满地找牙。即使FC31研发成功了,上文也分析过了,FC31的基础战斗力不如F35系列,要靠数量去弥补,在航母吨位赶不上美帝的情况下,这是不可能的。因此即使FC31舰载版服役,也无法改变被美军航母吊打的命运,那既然是这样,为什么要费劲去啃一个没味道的鸡肋,而不去认真搞下有意义的J20舰载版呢?

https://www.zhihu.com/question/30543311

x1.jpg

 

x2.jpg

 

x3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the long range aspect, and I certainly agree J-20 is superior. As for size, it doesn't seem like it is any shorter, just more narrow, and that is with the wings of the J-15 extended. Whether it truly stored in a smaller footprint depends on where the fold would be.

 

I still dono't see that canard narrow wing design having good slow speed handling characteristics. I think they'd have to make the wing as large as J-15 to make it manageable. And I'm willing to be the T:W ratio of the J-15 is better, and it already is limited to doing a full run out from the furthest back launch point in order to have a full fuel load. J20 will make sense only if the third carrier is indeed using cats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

FWIW, its globaltimes so may need a pinch of salt, although may still serve to ready perception of something to actual come out eventually otherwise loss of face.

 

 

China's future aircraft carriers will see stealth warplanes on their decks, likely the medium-sized fighter jet FC-31, said Chinese military experts as the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is procuring stealth parts for China's aircraft carrier-based fighter jet manufacturer.

Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute is in need of an integral unit for photoelectric target acquisition that is stealth capable, according to a notice the PLA weapon and equipment procurement website weain.mil.cn released on Thursday.

The notice also said that the unit must be able to operate against naval targets and capable of monitoring humidity.

Judging from the stated requirements and previous rumors, Chinese military observers said that the parts mentioned in the procurement are very likely to be used on China's new aircraft carrier-based stealth fighter jets although the notice did not specify how the parts will be used.

Having already designed China's current aircraft carrier-borne fighter jet J-15, Shenyang Aircraft Design Institute is developing a new carrier-based warplane based on the FC-31, a Chinese military insider, who asked not to be named, told the Global Times.

The FC-31 is a fourth generation medium-sized stealth fighter jet originally intended for export. Chinese military experts said that the PLA procurement notice suggests the FC-31 is no longer export-oriented, and is destined for domestic military service.

The FC-31 made its public debut flight at Airshow China 2014 in Zhuhai, South China's Guangdong Province, but went relatively quiet after that.

Multiple changes and upgrades are being made to the FC-31 allowing it to be used on an aircraft carrier, the insider said.

China's third aircraft carrier, which was confirmed to be under construction by the Xinhua News Agency in November and is widely expected to be equipped with an electromagnetic catapult, will use the stealth fighter jet, predicted Wang Yunfei, a naval expert and retired PLA Navy officer.

The single-seat, twin-engine fighter jet will greatly expand Chinese aircraft carrier battle groups' capabilities just as China's most advanced stealth fighter jet the J-20 did for the PLA Air Force, the anonymous insider said.

"Only a fourth generation fighter jet can stand up against another fourth generation fighter in an engagement without being at a significant disadvantage," he said.

The US-made fourth generation fighter jet F-35B and F-35C are capable of operating on aircraft carriers, and Japan is planning to upgrade its Izumo-class helicopter destroyers into aircraft carriers, equipping them with imported F-35Bs.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1134186.shtml

Link to post
Share on other sites

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They clearly have exceeded the Japanese in that they operate a carrier and Japan doesn't. If the 3rd carrier is in fact a CATOBAR type, which every open source indicates it will be, the Japanese will be far behind in terms of experience, numbers, and engineering. I don't doubt that they have the tech and skill to make it happen but there seems to be little will to move quickly. That said, I'm not sure it would be a particularly good use of resources anyway. I think greatly expanding Japan's tanker fleet and using conformal fuel tanks on any fighter that can take them would be a quicker, more cost effective way to extend Japan's land based air over most of the relevant region. Chinese carriers are largely going to be expensive targets with not a lot of capability until they perfect catapult operations and embark a fixed wing AEW aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the two Izumo-class to-be light carriers is enough of a counter to the two ski jump carriers. A number of Chinese sources of sorts say an ultimate goal of 5 or 6 carriers. If China stops at 3, then Japan won't need a larger carrier of their own. If China stops at 4, then its sort of a toss up as to whether or not Japan should get its own larger carrier. A single carrier of course would see some time of not being available as it goes into maintenance or upgrade phases. But having one does mean Japan possessing the technicality and the crew skills for carrier operations so should it be necessary to expand to two or more carriers, Japan would be able to do so. If China makes a 5th, then I think Japan will want to have 2 full-sized carriers.

 

Or in other words, if China are just a little above the Japanese in carrier ops, then reliance on the US as an ally to make up and then push for absolute combined total superiority is no problem. But if China is pushing to be quite superior to Japan, then reliance on the US would be too much, and to some extent, the US itself would be hard pressed to maintain deterrence of China at the same time as other regions. So Japan should scale up in that case.

 

One thing though is that some military thinkers here seem a little more interested in an Amphibious Assault Ship rather than a full size fleet carrier, which may make more sense. Something of the size of the America-class. Idea would is for the high multi functionality. Strategic speaking it would also enable greater response capability in contingents like Taiwan or DPRK. In some what, the US has less political will for sending boots on the ground than showing force and utilizing 3 fleet carrier strike groups. So should a situation arise that ground boots be needed for Taiwan or DPRK, necessary US boot numbers could be reduced in exchange for Japanese boots. Although on mention of DPRK, the funny thing is that just the mere utterance of Japanese boots going into DPRK should motivate the ROK to fill necessary numbers with their own ground forces instead.

 

In any case, as of the new 5 year midterm procurement plan (2019-2023), just the two Izumo DDHs are to be converted into the light carriers. The following 5 year mid-term plan might have the big ticket item or either amphibious assault ship or larger fleet carrier. Sort of makes sense to take the time in doing the two Izumo DDHs first as the handling of F-35Bs on them is naturally a transitional point to catch up in carrier ops.

 

About aerial refueling, Japan has the current 4 KC-767Js and 2 C-130Hs received funding to be converted into KC-130Hs in recent years in accordance to the 2014-2018 mid-term defense plan. In that mid-term defense plan, 3 KC-46s were planned for procurement but it seems like only 2 out of 3 got the funding within the annual defense budgets.

 

So as of now, its 6 larger tankers and 2 small tankers.

 

In the new midterm defense plan (2019-2023), 4 KC-46s are planned for procurement, although there isn't one in the 2019 annual budget. Although the 2019 defense budget has expensive items such as the two Aegis Ashore sites (about 1.61 billion USD). So 1 KC-46 for each of the remaining 4 years of the mid-term plan doesn't seem unlikely.

 

So after 2023 procurement items enter service by 2025ish, Japan should have 10 large aerial tankers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They clearly have exceeded the Japanese in that they operate a carrier and Japan doesn't. If the 3rd carrier is in fact a CATOBAR type, which every open source indicates it will be, the Japanese will be far behind in terms of experience, numbers, and engineering. I don't doubt that they have the tech and skill to make it happen but there seems to be little will to move quickly.

 

The word for this is complacency, and does not bode well for the future of Japanese dependency on the United States for its security.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They clearly have exceeded the Japanese in that they operate a carrier and Japan doesn't. If the 3rd carrier is in fact a CATOBAR type, which every open source indicates it will be, the Japanese will be far behind in terms of experience, numbers, and engineering. I don't doubt that they have the tech and skill to make it happen but there seems to be little will to move quickly.

 

The word for this is complacency, and does not bode well for the future of Japanese dependency on the United States for its security.

Is that really the case or is this a case of fishing for positive rebuttals? I've had my fill for the current session of having to make arguments about geopolitics/history relating to Japan. So one more bite then I'm taking a break until some time later.

 

It certainly hasn't been a case of complacency. Japan making a fully fledged fixed wing carrier in say the 1980s, 1990s, or even as late as 2005 would be geopolitical suicide as it would trigger a tsunami of criticism about so-called far right wing ultra-nationalists white washing historical revisionism going on a path of the term remilitarization. Comfort Women issue has not yet dragged to the point of being an obvious politicizing tool. Iris Chiang's book was taken as all true. The PM couldn't and still can't even visit Yasukuni Shrine without drawing such heavy international criticism. The mass media of international and domestic (leftists anti-Japan Japanese) never reported the valid arguments and points made by Japanese regarding these issues but only mention them briefly in a way that implies they are incorrect or the media only quote the obviously stupid far right statments even though those are the minority/dumb among the rebuttals. Such was the enrionment that making a fixed wing carrier would put Japanese exports at great risk. It has now only become possible because now other countries including the US need Japan to balance China.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

 

How good is Chinese ASW?

 

How good are the Japanese in offensive submarine operations?

 

Why the seeming need to match China carrier with carrier when one can sink the carrier by other means?

Edited by Corinthian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their submarine force is a generation behind. OTOH, the USN still has a lot of 688's in service, and I hear numbers are going to fall before they start getting better. They Virginnia's are probably far better than any Chinese Submarine. But they cant be several places at once. Even worse, the USN's FFG fleet is currently non existent, other than a couple of trials ships. If they started a commerce war, America would have to lean heavily on its allies to stop them.

 

Im not sure its as easy to sink carriers as the Chinese think. It may well be possible to sink carriers using hypersonic weapons. OTOH, nobody has yet demonstrated an ability to do so. It one thing to use a hypersonic missile against a static target. Carriers move. The only really reliable way to do it is still a nuclear warhead, and doing that is going to cause a number of problems to put it mildly.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

 

How good is Chinese ASW?

 

How good are the Japanese in offensive submarine operations?

 

Why the seeming need to match China carrier with carrier when one can sink the carrier by other means?

 

 

ASW is the part the PLA Navy hasn't mastered yet and is farther from getting a grip on. There's a lack of fixed wing aircraft, its helos are mostly torpedo carriers and their sonars are an unknown quantity but I have yet to find a US submariner that fears the Chinese (in books or the net), so they appear to be run of the mill. At the same time, the IJN is putting a lot of money and thought in their subs, so they won't catch a CV running away but are very likely to catch one that is sailing around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from the added military capability that ownership of offensive carrier striking capability provides a nation, apart from the political benefits of such ownership on the movement toward constitutional revision, and apart from the added pressure such ownership will apply to any potential opposing navy, the reasons are clear: because Japan and Japanese have the skill, the technology, and, perhaps most importantly, the economic means by which to do so.

 

An interesting question to ask would be why Japan and Japanese would ever not decide to.

 

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." -- John F. Kennedy

Edited by Nobu
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

China and Chinese will likely use the second carrier to increase the quality and quantity of their training in fixed-wing carrier operations, unfortunately.

 

Allowing them to have caught up, and to have potentially exceeded, Japanese carrier operations expertise is almost unforgivable in various ways.

 

How good is Chinese ASW?

 

How good are the Japanese in offensive submarine operations?

 

Why the seeming need to match China carrier with carrier when one can sink the carrier by other means?

 

 

At the same time, the IJN.....

 

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...