The Chinese have a lot more on station than 4 aircraft with a combat radius of 450 nm. Like J15 carrier fighters (radius 800nm), H6K bombers carrying CJ-10 missiles (range 1500 km), not to mention missile-armed submarines and surface ships, and a highly integrated space surveillance systems.
In any war, the actual fighting on the Allied side would be done by almost exclusively. by the US Pacific Fleet. And any posturing as well.
the Liaoning’s J-15s are pretty limited:
I don’t know about this either. I suspect the Japanese submarine fleet could sink some things.
That’s right, China. You, with the world’s largest military, 2nd-largest military budget, thousands of offensive cruise/ballistic missiles, numerous bombers, a nuclear arsenal, and a history of aggression, go lecture Japan about having “offensive capabilities.”
Eh, it’s not that big a deal. The F-35 is as much a fleet defense aircraft as it is a strike aircraft, and the cost is going to ensure that Japan never fields enough of them to make any real difference.
It’s almost as hypocritical as the US lecturing India and Pakistan about developing nuclear weapons!
With these helicopters carriers, is there a catapault or some kind of runway? I’m just imagining that if the F-35B must takeoff vertically, it means you can’t have any more ordnance and fuel that the capacity of it’s lift fan. Which cripples it in combat - the F-35s would run out of ammo and fuel against superior numbers of J-2, even if it was technically superior.
The other problem is that if you have a lift fan failure when you are trying to recover the aircraft, don’t you basically just lose it in a messy crash every time?
They use ramps, so it’s a short rolling take-off.
Ok, so with the lift fan and the ramp, you can get a full combat load, then? You just have less performance than the F-35A version because the aircraft is carrying the weight of the lift fan, and you obviously burn more fuel on launch and need more for landing running that fan.
Yes, you take a payload/range/performance tradeoff.
However specifically the *Hyuga *and *Izumo *Classes, following the model of American LHAs and LHDs, do not have a launch ramp.
(AFAIK the US Marines count on just the short-roll no-ramp STOL capability for their Harriers and their future F-35Bs, because operational doctrine is that for actual heavy battle they’ll have Air Superiority cover from the Fleet Carriers’ Hornets and F-35Cs)
The UK has gone with F-35Bs, on large carriers with ramps. I’m not sure that’s the best decision, to be perfectly honest, but projects of that size tend to take a life of their own.
Doesn’t the ducted fan allow for takeoffs with more ordnance load on the same length runway? I thought that was one of the advantages of Harrier, as well. Apples to Apples, doesn’t the B variant give the British more firepower per aircraft than the A or C variants, without them having to develop carrier catapults?
You are suffering from a severe case of Americanitis. The Lianoning and* Kuznetsov *style carriers are not for power projection like USN Groups (and pre 1980’s RN Groups), although they can do it in a pinch. They are designed to provide Air Defence to the fleet in the open ocean, as well as some ASW capability. The J15 are plenty able to do that. They are also equipped with IRST, which per sources can track '22 and '35 at ranges, certainly the USAF in Syria has avoided engaging Raptors with IRST equipped Su-35.
The offensive Naval strike power of China (and Russia) is based upon multi-engined bombers carrying large missiles, as well as surface ships and subs with the same. They differ from the USN in this way, although the USAF has decided to employ the B1-B bomber with the Long Range Air to Surface Missile.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the USAF Raptors in Syria have “avoided engaging” the Su-35 primarily because we don’t want to start a war with Russia, not because they’re equipped with IRST.
ETA: but maybe that’s just my crazy Americanitis talking again.
The UK buy details change every time a new government comes in. The original plan was for Bs operated from the QE class carriers with ramps. Then the plan shifted to mount launchers on the QE class and buy the C variant (navalized but without the VTOL capability). Now we’re back to ramps and Bs, but only from one carrier.
By the next election it will probably be navalized Eurofighters launched from fishing trawlers.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned a few weeks ago, so we’re probably past the point where it would be feasible to switch up the design (again). She should get her Bs in the next few years.
The ship was designed so that it can be converted to CATOBAR operation in the future, if necessary. Considering the last government switched when 90% of the ship had been laid down, who knows whether feasibility matters?
Prince of Wales is going ahead too. It first floated just last week, and is moving to fitting-out.
I wonder if there’s a such thing as anti-Americanitis…nah couldn’t be. 
Touché
:rolleyes:
The Russians are flying their best stuff in Syria. As is the US. In close proximity. You don’t think Air Force Intelligence on both sides aren’t wetting themselves at the prospect of getting so much information on enemy systems?
There is an agreed demarcation line in Syria delineating the respective areas both airforces fly in. Both sides, have tiptoed across the said line, regularly. The Russians used to send Su 34 to bomb US Allies until the USAF sent Raptors there. Then USAF started aggressive flying into Russian area, which led to the Su-35 deployment.
Well when you pepper your OP with comments like…
…the clearly deep thinking on said topic is not exactly something you have been doing.
