That’s not a very convincing argument, the rumors of China having hacked LM with F-35 info does not change what the J-20 is… and it is a bit far fetched to assume they would immediately put bits and pieces of what they gleaned into J-20 just for the hell of it.

The talk of “J-20 is from Chinese hacking F-35” is purely stupidity.
for one thing J-20 is flying while F-35 program is in some deep doo doo. :diablo:

joke aside.

if any one know the time scale of J-20 program, they would have know that at 2005 program decision year, Chengdu already had a workable design solution in simulation environment matured by first couple rounds of CFD/Wind tunnel. when was the supposed F-35 hacking?

Exactly, that proved the usefulness of chute during take off.
Have a chute means you can have a much larger V1 on the same runway.
In situations like aborted take off you can have much larger safety margin.
Don’t see why shouldn’t they open that during take off.
As in this stage, I don’t see what is wrong on coupling chute cylinder with gears.

that’s right,
V1 is determined in these things some times by the abort take off distance.

chute firing signal may be even coupled with some logic: when you are above certain speed on take off roll, gear down, WOW true, InAir bit false, and throttle just got chopped back to zero. then chutes fire.

some civil airplane has auto ground spoiler / deploy in case of such abort take offs. same idea.

Interesting point, Amiga. Where does the JSF fit in that picture? Because once you start looking at net vs. gross wing area (measured with root chord and root-to-tip distance) the A/B are not exactly over-endowed with wing.

Because They have to hit that Mmo/Vmo number as promised in contract!

Soviets didn’t choose to go for missiles becouse they tought that carriers weren’t up for the task. The reasons why soviet navy was what it was was much more complicated matter than that.

But I’m not that much interested on figuring out how well the existing or “almoust” existing carrier airgroups would have performed, but more of what sort of carriergroup would you need in order to get it done. I know it may sound difficoult, I tough myself that its just easy to ask others obinions but my lack of good means to express my toughts in english have failed me.

But lets do it this way: You are now in the powers of some nation X’s strategical planning and you have all the resourses needed. You have been given a task: counter USN carrier force. You have 9 carriers of various size in your possesion and 4 new supercarriers on build ready to replace older vessels. USN has introduced Aegis and has quite effective layered airdefence umbrella over its carriers. How would proceed? What sort of airgroup would you come up with to counter the new defence meassures of USN? Scrapping the carrier fleet isen’t an option due their enormous symbolic and prestige status for your country.
(don’t fix on exisiting aircrafts, just the concepts)

i did qualify my statement by saying it is a ” best what they can do given the resources”.

but anyways,

In your hypothetical scenario.
let’s say early 80s is the program starting date.

given that aegis is mainly a airdefense weapon, and that anti-shipping tomahawk is subsonic.

1) develope a dedicated large striker, a F-111 reborn would be nice but some along the lines of A-6s. range and payload is the key here. supersonic for getting away. and a detachable sensor pack for the striker for long range recon missions. so you can send out many of them if you have to, to find where you opposing number is.

2) develope a long range subsonic/supersonic cruise missile, subsnic for cruise range, terminal supersonic boost phase, radar+IR composite seeker. that striker in 1) can carry at least two and still has a hefty hi-lo-hi range.
3) leverage the turbofan and pulse doppler fighter radars that has came onto scene and develope a single engine turbofan powered light agile fighter that can shoot Aim-7s, something along the lines of a naval F-16. aimed to challenge F-14 in the outer rims, range and staying power in a small pacakge.

4) develope a 2 stage long range, boosted Aim-7 type that has a anti-radiation warhead and a autopilot, eyed for taking out E-2s.
5) a dedicated air defense destroyer/frigate but emphasis the traditional picket role. something like a krivak class derivative, instead with a hotdog pack in front, put a airdefense package. something like a buk-m with TVM would be nice. key is build in numbers.
6) of course, your own awacs to coordinate all these

#3 would dance with F-14s and rip a hole in the outer ring. and with #4 you scare E-2s so it will loss some situation awareness.
while #1 would go in for the kill with #2s in salvos.
#5 would accept some losses but forces the opposing strike force away from your carrier.

think traditional WWII pacific battles…
big rumbling kate-val/ daubtless-avenger formations and A6Ms/Wildcat to duke it out.
while destroyer pickets screens out.

Indeed not in real life, but thus I’m asking the question. What if soviets would have gone to the carrierrace and had sizeble carrier force. What sort of aircrafts/airgroup would they had to counter USN carriers? Or would the late cold war era carrier battlegroups defensive meassures be so good that attacking carriers with carriers would not be vital option anymore?

you mean with a Project 1143.7 Ul’yanovsk class with Yak-44/Su-33/Be P-42/Mig -29K?

well if two sides were practically the same then no one will “win”.
if two sides were significantly different in their approaches then it would not in your scope of comparison, the very reason soviets went to missile based solution becuase they believe it works the best given the resources to neutralize USN’s advantage in conventional carrier power.

however if lets say soviets strived for a carier based solution, per Ul’yanovsk with Yak-44/Su-33/Be P-42/Mig -29K, then my money is on soviet navy if 1) such hypothetical group would exist and 2) the encounter would be on neutral grouds i.e. no external factors such as space based early warning or SSNs or horrendous arctic sea weather that prevents safe launch and recovery of carrier aircraft….

… simply because soviets had a slightly better anti-shipping missiles on paper. and I would guess by the 90s they would have had them on their carrier strikers. now wether their supersonic anti-shipping missiles can do what it advertised on paper against what americans advertised their defensive system can do on paper, is another entirely new question by itself.

btw, has the early 90’s era aegis system ever faced a coordinated supersonic AshM attack wave under real battle field EW environment?
before co-op engagement and ESSMs and Active seekers for Standard missile and all that ?

I always thought it is bit of a strech when all of your area defense missiles are SARH and you claim you can throw up such a tight shield that nothing can get through.

It also means less space to spot aircraft. Also you either make a smaller catapult or add extra length for the ski jump?

I can’t imagine forcing a plane from the end of a catapult and onto a ramp is good for the plane either? There must be a reason the rest of te world hasn’t adopted or even widely tested this launch method and a catapult+ramp won’t be substantially easier or easier at all to develop as opposed to a catapult alone?

ok,
then a simple straight ramp then,
at prevent the cat guy from shooting aircraft into ocean in heaving seas. 😀

and
If I remember correctly the centripetal acceleration from the curve is trivial compare to the non-flare 3 point landings these things has to survive. and if you have a ski-ramped cat, the forces should be minimum.
for a steam cat it would be nightmarish to engineer as you would essentially need a curved cylinder. for EM it’s another story.

if you can save some cat length, not a bad thing either.

Rumor is we might see them on the first pair. We’ll know soon enough.

I am really hoping for a ramped cat.

best of two worlds.

my guess most likely is that they would go for a pair of waist cat.