Will the new Flying Leopard be the carrier aircraft of an aircraft carrier ready to operate?

The country's only ground glide jump take-off pad in Yan Liang is not explained.

How to say it, no matter how new the Flying Leopard is, he is still a second-generation aircraft. I can't say anything about the name alone. The Flying Leopard is a fighter-bomber, and its air combat capabilities are much worse than the S-33 fighter-bomber.

It may not be big, the aircraft carrier aircraft does not have high requirements for range and other items, but the requirements have good versatility, it needs to have both air combat capabilities and ground attack capabilities, and it also needs to have high reliability and survivability, and finally it is not too heavy, too big, you can get up on the aircraft carrier, the air combat ability of the flying leopard is too weak, and the other is too heavy.

No, carrier-based fighters must have strong air combat capabilities. The main opponent of China's future aircraft carrier is the US aircraft carrier, and seizing air supremacy is the most important task, followed by sea attack. The Flying Leopard is a fighter-bomber aircraft, obviously not good.

The J-11 carrier-based type is the right way, but it must not take off by sliding jump, and the depot ship is a lesson from the past.

The Flying Leopard is a fighter-bomber and it should not be possible to get on board.

The Flying Leopard's air combat capability is relatively weak, and aircraft carriers and carrier-based aircraft carriers have the opportunity to choose fighters with a certain degree of air combat capability, while the Flying Leopard cannot hit the standard.

The flying leopard is too large and takes up space.

The body of the Flying Leopard has a certain gap for carrier-based aircraft, and if it is hard, it will be greatly changed, and if the Flying Leopard is changed to a double vertical tail, it should be better for carrier-based aircraft.

At that time, the stars were wrong: The enemy of China's aircraft carriers is not the US aircraft carrier, and our aircraft carriers cannot fight with the US heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carrier fleet, and our aircraft carriers can be used to eliminate ships from countries like Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam.

In fact, the Flying Leopard with anti-ship missiles is a very good choice for low-altitude raid on the fleet.

Then it is a question whether the point thrust can be used with a springboard.

Moreover, if such a weak aircraft is used as a carrier-based aircraft, the aircraft carrier will basically be scrapped.

The anti-aircraft combat capability is too weak. The Flying Leopard is a specially designed fighter-bomber, unlike the F-15E and Su30, which are converted from air superiority fighters. And land-based aircraft on board the ship will definitely have to undergo a major structural change.

Yes, the Flying Leopard was originally designed as a HNA aircraft. However, that is not considered to build a ship, so it is not considered to be on a ship, so it must be considered to improve the strength of the airframe. As a fighter-bomber, the Flying Leopard is not good in air combat in general, but it is very good in low-altitude air combat.

No, the J-7A Flying Leopard is too weak in anti-aircraft capabilities, the maximum maneuverable overload is only 7G, the maximum speed is only Mach, the aircraft carrier must have high-performance fighters, and only the J-7A will not work.

Unlikely, the flying leopard is too heavy to fly without a catapult, but the J-10 B, which has a good short-range take-off ability, and it is very possible to go on the ship as an attack aircraft, but the J-10 is a belly air intake, and the reinforcement of the nose landing gear is a problem.

Completely impossible. Carrier-based aircraft and ordinary Air Force fighters are completely different aircraft.

No, carrier-based aircraft have high requirements for engines, that is, large thrust, even if the installation of steam catapult is enough for me, the performance of the Flying Leopard is obviously not good, and it is not built in accordance with the requirements of carrier-based aircraft, although it is equipped with naval aviation, it belongs to the ground-to-sea medium fighter-bomber. Needless to say, we are building aero engines, let alone high-thrust, and it is impossible to get on aircraft carriers if the problem of engines cannot be solved. If it has to, it can only be improved on a large scale, and the domestic engine in terms of power is definitely not good, so it can only be considered imported, and the body structure also needs to be redesigned to strengthen and improve, and it is better to redesign the new model.

It can't get up, and the Flying Leopard didn't take off and land according to the aircraft carrier's design. The size of the flying leopard is relatively large, the dead weight is relatively heavy, and the take-off and landing distance is large.

Can be on, but if you really want to go on, there are too many places that need to be changed, at present we have J-15, it is said that 18 also has, so why bother to make flying leopards?

Of course not, the use of aircraft carriers has not been considered in the first place, how can it be so simple to modify carrier-based aircraft?

Chickens can go up to big trees, and flying leopards can certainly go up to aircraft carriers. It's just that the aircraft carrier is willing to be on or not...

You look up to our aircraft carrier too much, and you have to take off even when you take off, do you think Feifei can fly, and besides, the Flying Leopard is not a cow machine, but the naval aviation does not have planes to fly, and it is definitely unrealistic to fly Sukhoi, so the Flying Leopard always has accidents.

The Flying Leopard can't fly much faster at first, and the F18 is enough to intercept him. The Flying Leopard will not come close to the dive bombers or torpedo bombers in World War II to bombard the aircraft carriers, and most of them launch missiles within the maximum range of air-to-ship missiles.

In addition, fighter-bombers now often adopt the tactics of high-speed and low-altitude radar and radio silence, wait until they reach the range of air-to-ship missiles, and then suddenly raise them and turn on the radar (some even do not turn on the radar, but the data link provides various parameters) to launch the missile. Of course, in order to pursue the accuracy of missiles and reduce the enemy's reaction time, missiles are often launched at a closer distance. Modern fighters will not use high-altitude and high-speed attack mode, because then they will directly report themselves to the opponent's air defense system.

The situation you are talking about is just a kind of alert flight, if the opponent's plane reaches the alert circle, it can be intercepted, and at the same time the second batch of planes will take off.

High speed? How high is the high speed? How fast can a flying leopard fly?

High altitude? How high is the altitude? How high can a flying leopard fly?

Specific speed? Are you going to compare the speed with an anti-aircraft missile?

You have a basic idea of the defense system of an aircraft carrier???

The Aegis ships of the aircraft carrier formation are not ornaments. Even if the speed of the F18 is not good, it is not too much of a problem to meet the attacking side, not to mention the support of AWACS aircraft. And the first aircraft is not always parked on the aircraft carrier, waiting for the situation to take off.

In peace, a certain number of carrier-based aircraft are left in the air to patrol, usually 400 nautical miles away from the aircraft carrier.

No, the engine thrust is insufficient, the air station performance is not good, and the landing gear wing does not meet the needs of the ship. And it's designed to be ground attack, and the air combat capability is very poor, so it's out of the question, isn't it a su33 now, China's current technology is still not good for carrier-based aircraft.

Carrier-based aircraft must at least accelerate quickly and have high lift to get up, and the JH-7 has neither. The use is too simple, and in general it is old, and there is not much potential for improvement. More than the ideal aircraft of the JH-7.

It is very unlikely that the structure of the Flying Leopard will not meet the requirements of gliding and take-off, and the taxiing distance will be too long, and the space occupied in the hangar will be larger.

No, not even by steam catapults.

The Flying Leopard has a large bomb load, and if it is changed to a carrier-based type, it needs to be ejected with steam, and China has not yet developed a steam catapult, and the Varyag, which is about to be completed, is used to take off with a glide jump.

Of course not, there is no possibility.

It should be considered to do a test machine on the ship to provide data for future improvement and research and development.

The new flying leopard is the flying leopard A, compared to the old flying leopard canceled the wing knife on the wing, and replaced with more advanced avionics equipment, I am the designer of the 603 Institute, due to confidentiality reasons, more details are inconvenient to disclose.

The information that can be confirmed indicates that the so-called new flying leopard is the J-7A. Personally, I think that the design of the flying leopard is not advanced enough, and there will be no major breakthrough in improving the performance, and the effect is not great, so it is better to redesign.

"Into the Ocean".

Baiyun flies, and the one who flies is the flying leopard.

Very good **, I waited with the author for a chapter a day, China's aircraft carriers, China's ocean-going navy!

It's too capable, whether you can get on the aircraft carrier or not is decided based on the design of the aircraft, how can you be willful?

Although it's a bit silly to do, if the pilots of the whole country can have this fighting spirit F22, they should get out.

The standard Nimitz is about 76-80, and there are hundreds of new Ford-class, about 20 more than the Nimitz.

American Nimitz class, standard loading about 80 aircraft.

If you think about it, a country as awesome as the United States has not built more than 6 ships at once. The United States has six large shipyards, all of which have dry docks of more than 100,000 tons, and theoretically speaking, if you do not consider the money and the production capacity of other ships and fighters in the aircraft carrier battle group, it is possible to start at least six or more ships at the same time. This means that in the event of a state of war, the circle time for the construction of American aircraft carriers may be only 6 months.

It's about 40 months now. In China, only Dalian and Shanghai shipyards can build 100,000-ton dock platforms at the same time, and from a global perspective, aircraft carriers are built one by one, even if they are of the same type, each one has been improved. Because in the non-war era, building too many aircraft carriers of the same type at the same time is also prone to the risk of overall technological obsolescence.

And for the aircraft carrier to form combat effectiveness, it is necessary to take into account the construction cycle of the entire system. So China is building at most one, not the so-called 3-5, and if you think about it, the construction of Aegis ships is at most 2 at the same time, not to mention aircraft carriers, in addition, rational and patriotic.

one. Build one now, and then rebuild it after the technology is upgraded.

This question is so boring.

As long as China starts building aircraft carriers, it will continue to build them one after another, and new ships will continue to build old ships until aircraft carriers withdraw from the stage of history.

First engage in one, then large conventional, and finally large nuclear-powered, nuclear-powered at least 2 or more battle groups.

Of course, the aircraft carrier builds one, and then builds a shipping company; Chickens lay eggs, eggs lay chickens.

Not one, one is being repaired... That's restoration, not construction. I can't even make steel plates by myself, and I negotiate with others, what military steel technology do I want, and what kind of technology can I say I can build an aircraft carrier by myself, nonsense.

Who said that the Flying Leopard was not given to the Air Force .?

The flying leopard that fell on the peace mission is the 5th Air Division!

Our 28th Division and 83rd Regiment are also equipped with Flying Leopards, which are the first batch of equipment in the Air Force (2004)! If you don't understand, don't talk nonsense.

Now there is only one model of the Flying Leopard fighter, that is, the JH7-A does not have a B type, which means that the air force aviation and the naval aviation are the same model, and there is no difference between the aircraft itself.

As for why the navy and the air force are divided, because the navy is responsible for coastal defense tasks, and needs aircraft that can attack water targets, the current naval aviation equipment has a strong five, but the strong five is too old to be fully qualified for coastal defense tasks, and now the naval force is slowly strengthening and also needs a naval aviation with both offense and defense, so JH7 also gave a batch of naval aviation. Their deployment positions are all near the sea, and although the planes are the same, they are not the same in terms of combat readiness.

It seems that the Flying Leopard was not given to the Air Force, and it was originally designed for the Navy.

The appearance is the same, but some details are different, for example, the surface treatment of the landing gear for the Navy in order to cope with the corrosion of seawater salt will use plating, and the number of rework is less than two, leaving three times for the overhaul plant, and the general process of the Air Force can be. But now the Air Force seems to be asking for ...... plating as well

HNA's number starts with 8, 0 word test machine, 1-7 air force. View from the side of the fuselage.

Looks like a sea camouflage.

An empty camouflage.