Ford Zip file probably not on the server yet.So the PLAN aircraft carrier Type 003 is to be a conventional carrier and not nuclear powered. What made the Chinese stop going to full nuclear for their next carrier? cost or technological problems?
Ford Zip file probably not on the server yet.So the PLAN aircraft carrier Type 003 is to be a conventional carrier and not nuclear powered. What made the Chinese stop going to full nuclear for their next carrier? cost or technological problems?
I've heard it was technical problems, but I don't think we'll ever know.
question. i often hear the liaoning (the first carrier) is supposed to be more of a training ship and a stop gap towards true carrier operations
if so, is this true with the Flankers they operate? are they also just a stop gap and the PLAN has another aircraft they plan to move on to?
I don't believe there is a known successor aircraft to the J-15, though presumably one is being worked on at some level. People have kicked around the idea of J-31 filling that role, but I don't think there's been any official indication or public release of info that confirms it.
given that the Chinese carriers are based off the Russian ones and operate similar sized aircraft..question. i often hear the liaoning (the first carrier) is supposed to be more of a training ship and a stop gap towards true carrier operations
if so, is this true with the Flankers they operate? are they also just a stop gap and the PLAN has another aircraft they plan to move on to?
Allegedly the next PLANAF carrier-based fighter will be a version of the J-31, but that remains unconfirmed. It's likely that the Type 003 will have a bunch of CATOBAR J-15s.
given that the Chinese carriers are based off the Russian ones and operate similar sized aircraft..question. i often hear the liaoning (the first carrier) is supposed to be more of a training ship and a stop gap towards true carrier operations
if so, is this true with the Flankers they operate? are they also just a stop gap and the PLAN has another aircraft they plan to move on to?
Allegedly the next PLANAF carrier-based fighter will be a version of the J-31, but that remains unconfirmed. It's likely that the Type 003 will have a bunch of CATOBAR J-15s.
I wonder if China is willing to export a naval J-31 to Russia one day or allow license production of it.
it uses Russian engines and can save Russia time and money on the R&D.
Anyway, logistically would it make sense for China to operate ski-jump, steam cat and EMALS catapults across its fleet? I would think they would want some commonality.
given that the Chinese carriers are based off the Russian ones and operate similar sized aircraft..question. i often hear the liaoning (the first carrier) is supposed to be more of a training ship and a stop gap towards true carrier operations
if so, is this true with the Flankers they operate? are they also just a stop gap and the PLAN has another aircraft they plan to move on to?
Allegedly the next PLANAF carrier-based fighter will be a version of the J-31, but that remains unconfirmed. It's likely that the Type 003 will have a bunch of CATOBAR J-15s.
I wonder if China is willing to export a naval J-31 to Russia one day or allow license production of it.
it uses Russian engines and can save Russia time and money on the R&D.
on that note, any good info on how much the J-15 is cleared to take off with in terms of fuel and payload?Anyway, logistically would it make sense for China to operate ski-jump, steam cat and EMALS catapults across its fleet? I would think they would want some commonality.
But if China regards ski-jump design as an inferior system overall (More deck used, less flexibility, less payload or range on average etc)
thanks! i couldnt find a good top down pic of liaoning but for KuznetsovWhile the Chinese don't publish figures for their j-15 I will do what I always do when that question is posed. Copy paste text from the Andrei fomin"s book on su-33 operating from Kuznetsov. (Translation from Russian by Paralay)
"Su-27K with incomplete filling of fuel tanks, depending on the amount of suspended missiles " air" , ranged from 25 to 28 tons while he was starting thrust 0.9-1.0 and could take off from the 1st or 2nd starting position on the deck of the ship ( the takeoff distance of 105 m ) . With full fuel tanks and maximum ammunition missiles " air" take-off weight increased to 32 tons, and thrust was reduced to 0.8. In this case vzleet aircraft had to be made with the third starting position ( takeoff distance of 195 m ) . Hence , the aircraft could start and the maximum load it with bombs and rockets".
Whether j15 has slightly different figures we can't know. But it should be close enough.
thanks. so the claims were wrong, and that indeed the Flankers can take off with full fuel and full armament. just needs to take off from the rear position.Yes, exactly.
Well, Flankers CAN take off with full load, but it's still not such a small drawback to do it from the rear position. There's just one position there, which means the launch rate is almost two times worse than for the not-fully-loaded flankers. Plus that position takes up two thirds of the entire deck length. Which means it somewhat impedes other deck operations, while such launches are performed. I am not talking just about landings but also various movement of planes around the deck. Overall sortie rates generated by the carrier, when planes are required to take off from the 3rd position are surely noticeably worse compared to ops from the first two positions.thanks. so the claims were wrong, and that indeed the Flankers can take off with full fuel and full armament. just needs to take off from the rear position.Yes, exactly.
next question.. does the PLAN must demand a catapult version? I assume that a catobar layout, since it can still launch fully loaded aircraft, would be overall cheaper to operate and produce less stress on the airframe.
however, using the rear position limits simultaneous landing and take off, and take offs are limited to 1 per plane.
but seeing as PLAN seems to operate mostly in peace time, does it need to use the rear position as often?
thank you josh and my neighbor totoro.As noted above, sortie rate suffers immensely with the STOBAR take off and aircraft with low thrust ratios are precluded from take off at all. The PLAN will make the transition to CATOBAR as soon as it can; the only question is whether this ship will have cats and what form they will take. One of the tweets posted above noted steam turbines; if true that could mean nuclear power but more likely IMO means steam cats. Alternatively, they are adopting conventional steam as a learning step to nuclear propulsion and EMALS is fitted. We shall see.
Stovl carriers are inherently less efficient. Even if one uses a huge carrier such as QE, and compares it to a Nimitz, that ship can still launch one plane every minute or so. Compared to 4 times as many on Nimitz. QE max launch rate was once quoted at 15 minutes for 24 planes. Nimitz could do its entire 60 plane air wing within 20 or so minutes.thank you josh and my neighbor totoro.As noted above, sortie rate suffers immensely with the STOBAR take off and aircraft with low thrust ratios are precluded from take off at all. The PLAN will make the transition to CATOBAR as soon as it can; the only question is whether this ship will have cats and what form they will take. One of the tweets posted above noted steam turbines; if true that could mean nuclear power but more likely IMO means steam cats. Alternatively, they are adopting conventional steam as a learning step to nuclear propulsion and EMALS is fitted. We shall see.
what do you think of the stovl carriers then in terms of sortie rates and such vis avis the catobar.
![]()
China cracks down on online military posts
China has cracked down on the discussion of military affairs within its so-called Great Firewall, potentially limiting open-source coverage of the country’s defense developments.www.defensenews.com
These actions come in the wake of a Weibo account run by the military’s official newspaper, the PLA Daily, posting a commentary warning China’s military enthusiasts to avoid being unwitting tools for foreign intelligence services.
The Weibo account, Jun Zhengping Studio, which roughly translates to “Military Discussion Studio,” cited a recent incident where a photo published on social media showed “a weapon that has yet to enter service,” which became “key intelligence” for foreign agencies seeking information on China’s defense and military developments.
It added that this incident was the latest in a string of similar occurrences and warned that even unwitting revelations of military secrets by defense enthusiasts who are otherwise supporters of a strong Chinese military could potentially lead to prison terms.
It’s unclear what recent revelation the commentary was referring to; although in recent months, video of a Xi’an H-6N bomber carrying what is believed to be an air-launched hypersonic glide vehicle as well as photos taken discreetly from a distance showing elements of the internal layout of China’s third aircraft carrier currently undergoing construction at a shipyard near Shanghai first appeared on China’s social media.
The crackdown is potentially detrimental to those who use open-source material to analyze China’s military developments. Other examples of such sources include a regular stream of photos showing the progress of the aforementioned aircraft carrier undergoing construction at Changxing island near Shanghai, sometimes taken by passengers on commercial airliners taking off from or landing at the city’s Pudong airport.
I guess it's for the better.The US has started to restrict information about its projects perhaps even more than it did during the cold war. For instance we known almost nothing about the AIM-260 or NGAD programs, and most of the hypersonic stuff we have images of but no stats for.
There is a price to pay for secrecy, literally. It's expensive, especially as programs scale. Secondly, free flow of information among researchers is important to the health of a R&D ecosystem. Notoriously secretive companies like Apple are finding themselves compromised in A.I. by their own nature.I guess it's for the better.The US has started to restrict information about its projects perhaps even more than it did during the cold war. For instance we known almost nothing about the AIM-260 or NGAD programs, and most of the hypersonic stuff we have images of but no stats for.
The HF "whiskers" antennae stand out in this profile.thanks! i couldnt find a good top down pic of liaoning but for KuznetsovWhile the Chinese don't publish figures for their j-15 I will do what I always do when that question is posed. Copy paste text from the Andrei fomin"s book on su-33 operating from Kuznetsov. (Translation from Russian by Paralay)
"Su-27K with incomplete filling of fuel tanks, depending on the amount of suspended missiles " air" , ranged from 25 to 28 tons while he was starting thrust 0.9-1.0 and could take off from the 1st or 2nd starting position on the deck of the ship ( the takeoff distance of 105 m ) . With full fuel tanks and maximum ammunition missiles " air" take-off weight increased to 32 tons, and thrust was reduced to 0.8. In this case vzleet aircraft had to be made with the third starting position ( takeoff distance of 195 m ) . Hence , the aircraft could start and the maximum load it with bombs and rockets".
Whether j15 has slightly different figures we can't know. But it should be close enough.
I guess 1 or 2 is the two front positions on this pic
and position 3 is the one in the back at the angled deck?
![]()