CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[sheogorath]

I think PLA took the lesson on J-15. Because the wings are folded too much, most hard points on the wings are inaccessible once the wings are folded. So PLA prefer easier and faster operation to smaller footprint

I don't think it is much of an issue in most escenarios. You have plenty of hardpoints at the root of the wings, intakes and between the nacelles, all of which are accesible with the wings folded while leaving the AAM's on the folded wings if the airplane is on QRA, not unlike the Hornets and their wingtip AAM's.

In theory, the only issue would be the hardpoints on the folded wings closest to the mechanism, but I don't know if they are rated for anything heavier than AAM on the J-15. That said, even ground Flankers other than the Su-34 don't tend to carry anything heavier than an AAM on hardpoints beyond 11 and 12

 

[Alfa_Particle]

Head on shot with mockups visible.
View attachment 136687

This should align closer with what it actually looks like:

 

[Blitzo]

This should align closer with what it actually looks like:
View attachment 136723

I'm confused, do you mean if a picture was taken from that angle, with a different lens and your image is correcting it?
Because the original picture looks pretty reasonable from perspective of angles and I don't see any visual oddities.

(edit: if you're saying the original image was taken by a drone, the image also looks reasonable to me -- the modification that you've done would be plausible if the drone was flying at a much lower altitude to produce that distorting effect, likely a drone would have had to be almost right above the flight deck, which is unlikely. Whereas the original picture could have been taken by a drone at a much higher altitude)

If you're saying it's a visual oddity that the J-35's folded wingspan is greater than that of J-15's folded wingspan -- that is already confirmed and established that the folded wingspan of J-35 is larger than that of J-15, which we could tell from images in the last year or two with satellite pictures of J-35 and J-15 mockups with folded wings next to each other as well as comparisons of J-35 and J-15 mockups on carriers.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're seeking to demonstrate



(annotations not mine, but it shows the difference in folded wingspan well even despite the resolution)


Slightly off angle between the two, but in a way which still demonstrates the J-35's folded wingspan being greater than that of J-15's folded wingspan (if anything it makes J-35's folded wingspan look a bit narrower relative to the J-15)

 

[gelgoog]

It is probably a design tradeoff to make the aircraft lighter.

 

[tphuang]

I think PLA took the lesson on J-15. Because the wings are folded too much, most hard points on the wings are inaccessible once the wings are folded. So PLA prefer easier and faster operation to smaller footprint

I think that is part of it. Keep in mind the folding tails on J-15 add more complexity and time to operation also.

I remember this was talked about in Shilao's podcast.

It does seem logical in a way to make the folded footprint of J-15 and J-35 about the same, since they make planning and training easier regardless of air wing composition.

Interesting how PLAN fighter aircraft should both have longer range and more interior space + larger nose to house radar and electronics vs USN counterpart.

 

[Alfa_Particle]

I'm confused, do you mean if a picture was taken from that angle, with a different lens and your image is correcting it?
Because the original picture looks pretty reasonable from perspective of angles and I don't see any visual oddities.

(edit: if you're saying the original image was taken by a drone, the image also looks reasonable to me -- the modification that you've done would be plausible if the drone was flying at a much lower altitude to produce that distorting effect, likely a drone would have had to be almost right above the flight deck, which is unlikely. Whereas the original picture could have been taken by a drone at a much higher altitude)

If you're saying it's a visual oddity that the J-35's folded wingspan is greater than that of J-15's folded wingspan -- that is already confirmed and established that the folded wingspan of J-35 is larger than that of J-15, which we could tell from images in the last year or two with satellite pictures of J-35 and J-15 mockups with folded wings next to each other as well as comparisons of J-35 and J-15 mockups on carriers.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're seeking to demonstrate

View attachment 136727

(annotations not mine, but it shows the difference in folded wingspan well even despite the resolution)
View attachment 136728

Slightly off angle between the two, but in a way which still demonstrates the J-35's folded wingspan being greater than that of J-15's folded wingspan (if anything it makes J-35's folded wingspan look a bit narrower relative to the J-15)

You can see misaligned shadows in the non-adjusted one I posted.

 

[taxiya]

delete

 

[Blitzo]

You can see misaligned shadows in the non-adjusted one I posted.

The shadows look normal to me -- they are not misaligned relative to the direction of the sun, which is likely coming in from a slight angle, like so.
Was the shadows the only reason you thought the image was distorted

 

[Atomicfrog]

It is probably a design tradeoff to make the aircraft lighter.

Maybe to have better fuel capacity in the wings ?

 

[ChineseToTheBone]

Obviously there are more practical reasons for this, but it was good to see a heavy focus on passing institutional knowledge by having many crew members having experience previously working on both Liaoning and Shandong.