J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Blitzo]

Biggest drawback of J-15/Liaoning combination is a fact that J-15 would not be able to use its full payload when taking-off from Liaoning . J-15 originates from Su-33 which was not designed as a naval strike fighter . Soviets were concerned only with air defense and PLAN wants multirole platform .

I'm sorry thunderchief, but you're blatantly wrong here.

You seem to be under the impression that the original Su-33 was designed only for air defence and not with strike capability in mind, and that some kind of inherent deficiency (either avionics or structural) makes the Su-33 unable to carry strike weapons?

I will split your opinion into two parts.
Point A: you believe J-15 is "based off" Su-33, and because the Su-33 wasn't designed to carry strike weapons, then J-15 can't.
Point B: you believe J-15 cannot take off from liaoning with a full payload, therefore it cannot carry heavy strike weapons.


I will address point A first.
Ahem, now, the Russian Navy's Su-33s don't seem able to carry strike weapons, but that is a result of the poor funding of the russian navy being unable to fork out for the avionics and weapons to equip their planes.
That is to say, it is not that the Su-33 which wasn't "designed" as a naval strike fighter, but rather its avionics weren't catered for it. There was nothing inherent in the aircraft preventing it from integrating the avionics to support strike weapons. The aircraft had an MTOW of 33 tons, and the structural strength to support heavy weapons. All it lacks are the avionics.
In fact, Sukhoi has marketed Su-33 with dummies of air to ground weapons, with the associated avionics packages for various customers shoudl they want them.

So, here is Fact One: Su-33 is limited in its ability to conduct strike only because it lacks the relevant avionics.

Now, J-15 is derived from Su-33, correct. In structure, aerodynamics, etc. But in avionics it is completely new. And as I've already said, avionics is the most important determinant of whether an aircraft can conduct strike or not.
Furthermore, we've had pictures of J-15 carrying dummies of anti ship missiles, and dummies of bombs that could very well end up being smart bombs on the real thing. We also have direct words from various state media sources saying the J-15 is meant to conduct precision strike. Finally, we have years of reliable rumours to all but confirm that J-15 is eqiupped with the avionics for strike.

So, here is Fact Two: J-15 is equipped with avionics to carry and launch a number of strike munitions.


Now I'll address Point B, the idea that J-15 cannot take off from a ski jump at MTOW.

There has been much debate over this matter, and I am of the belief that J-15 (and Su-33, Mig-29K, etc) can take off from ski jumps at MTOW, but it depends on the strength of the headwind across the deck which will assist the aircraft in gaining lift.
It is virtually impossible to confirm or deny this matter. It has become a bit of an urban legend of sorts, something we all refer to but with little evidence to support for or against.

However, I translated these few pages of a Su-33s supposed take off loadouts/weights, at various headwinds and ski jump lengths. I suggest you take a read of them.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/nav...-programme-news-views-44-6479.html#post247737


So, here is (possible) Fact Three: various aircraft (including Su-33/J-15, Mig-29K) can take off from ski jumps at maximum take off weight with sufficient headwind.

Considering Mig-29K , it looks like this plane could take-off with decent payload from Vikramaditya .

Mig-29K should be able to take off with decent payload from Vikramditya, the same way J-15 can take off with decent payload from Liaoning, as long as both have sufficient headwind.

So I have to ask you, why do you think Mig-29K can but J-15/Su-33 can't?

Is it because Mig-29K is a smaller plane than Su-33? However, I hope you understand that just because a plane is smaller doesn't mean it can automatically take off with more payload. Because while Mig-29K weighs smaller, its engines are also far less powerful.

Assuming both aircraft are taking off under similar headwind conditions, their relative take off weights should be proportional as well -- this is because their T/W ratios are not dramatically different.
Basically what I'm saying is that smaller aircraft (with similar aerodynamics) are not magically able to take off from ski jumps just because they're lighter, because at the end of the day they have less thrust as well.

As Liaoning has longer deck , purely technically speaking Mig-29K/Liaoning combination would be almost perfect (medium sized carrier with medium sized plane) .

Having already dispensed with your idea that only Mig-29K can somehow take off from a ski jump at MTOW while Su-33/J-15 can't, "technically speaking" a Mig-29K/Liaoning combination wouldn't offer any absolute advantages over the current J-15/Liaoning load out, because both J-15 and Mig-29K should be able to take off with their respective MTOWs. So it revert to a simple choice of having less larger and more capable J-15s, vs. more and less capable Mig-29Ks.


---


Here is the take home message:

-Su-33 was only unable to conduct strike because it lacked the relevant avionics (putting it another way, the Russians could easily have made their Su-33s strike capable if they simply had the money to pay for the avionics and the weapons)
-J-15 has the avionics to conduct strike, and it is an accepted fact that the PLAN intend to operate it as a strike aircraft
-With sufficient headwind, J-15/Su-33 (and also Mig-29K) should be able to take off at or near MTOW
-Just because Mig-29K is smaller, doesnt' mean it can take off from a ski jump with proportionally more weight (holding all other variables like headwind, air conditions, constant) than a Su-33 can, because the Mig-29K also has less powerful engines.

 

[bd popeye]

On CAP, a J15 can stay on station longer, carry more weapons, and have a bigger radar and more powerful avionics than a medium sized plane. The bigger fuel reserves is key, as it gives the J15 the luxury of punching in afterburners more often, and for longer than a smaller bird. That can be a huge advantage both in terms of getting to targets faster, ie, before they have a chance to launch at your surface fleet; and also in air combat itself, since the J15 pilot won't have to worry about whether or not he will have enough fuel to get home if he kicks in afterburners.

plawolf..excellent post as usual.

As thunderchief pointed out the J-15 cannot take off with a full "bag of gas" as we use to say. If anyone has any other knowledge of what load an J-15 can take off with from CV-16 please post.

My concern for CV-16 is the ability to safely and properly handle an aircraft as large as an J-15 aboard ship. I mean a squadron and a half of these aircraft(20+) will be difficult to handle. And the space required to spot(park) these aircraft will eat up the deck multiple(number of spots available to spot other aircraft) I know. Trust me. The USN "crunched" enough Tomcats aboard ships. I hope that the next PLAN CV will be larger and with catapults.

A "Crunch" or"Crunched" is an accident that happens when moving an aircraft.

I also know thew Chinese will operate their aircraft carrier/airwing in a manner best suited for the needs of the PLA forces.

I do not intend to argue with anyone. I'm just reflecting my experience in service aboard aircraft carriers.

I just saw this as posted by Bltizo;

Now I'll address Point B, the idea that J-15 cannot take off from a ski jump at MTOW.

There has been much debate over this matter, and I am of the belief that J-15 (and Su-33, Mig-29K, etc) can take off from ski jumps at MTOW, but it depends on the strength of the headwind across the deck which will assist the aircraft in gaining lift.
It is virtually impossible to confirm or deny this matter. It has become a bit of an urban legend of sorts, something we all refer to but with little evidence to support for or against.

However, I translated these few pages of a Su-33s supposed take off loadouts/weights, at various headwinds and ski jump lengths. I suggest you take a read of them.

I remember that.. and I do not nor will I ever understand all the math involved. I just do not feel it can take off with a full load. Just my opinion.

Once again..I do not intend to argue with anyone. I'm just reflecting my experience in service aboard aircraft carriers.

 

[kwaigonegin]

I wouldn't consider the F-14 in the same class as MiG 29. While it is not as large as the Flanker family it's by no means puny or even mid size.. certainly much bigger than the MiG 29s and yes I have seen BOTH up close and personal to make that determination and not even bother with the stats on paper.

The overswept feature of the wing do make parking the birds easier just as I imagined for the J-15s with the wings and stabilizers foldable she would not be too difficult to park either IMHO.

The J-15s will be good for FADs or fleet air defense roles and also long range interdiction strike with her high endurance and powerful radar. The PLAN in the future may also develop a long range AAM in the same class of the AIM 54 and I think the Flanker platform is perfect for such a missile.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Shouldn't this thread technically be under the navy section?

 

[Blitzo]

I just saw this as posted by Bltizo;

I remember that.. and I do not nor will I ever understand all the math involved. I just do not feel it can take off with a full load. Just my opinion.

Once again..I do not intend to argue with anyone. I'm just reflecting my experience in service aboard aircraft carriers.

With all due respect, unless any of the carriers you have served on have done studies regarding the feasibility of launching fighters from ski jumps under varying headwind conditions (or maybe if you've heard anyone in the USN who's done studies regarding this subject), your service experience probably isn't as relevant to this topic.
(Of course, maybe your service time provided knowledge on the kinematics and physics of carrier launches, so perhaps you can speak regarding the plausiblity of an aircraft of J-15's weight taking off from a ski jump with headwind, from a more scientific angle?)


Furthermore, there have been russian documentations stating that during trials aboard the Kuznetsov in the late cold war, that the Su-33 did take off with full payload. (Unfortunately this was over on keypub years ago and I didn't save a picture of the book scan)

Now, I'm aware that we won't ever be able to fully convince the other side about whether a ski jump can launch fighters at full payload, I think we should at least acknowledge the possibility in these discussions.

 

[Blitzo]

Shouldn't this thread technically be under the navy section?

Being an "aircraft" I think it is just sorted into the airforce sub forum.

I think it makes more intuitive sense this way. Sort the various threads based on the physical domain they operate in (land, air, sea), rather than the service they are in, which would get far more confusing imo.

 

[bd popeye]

Shouldn't this thread technically be under the navy section?

Correct..and done..

 

[SteelBird]

Biggest drawback of J-15/Liaoning combination is a fact that J-15 would not be able to use its full payload when taking-off from Liaoning . J-15 originates from Su-33 which was not designed as a naval strike fighter . Soviets were concerned only with air defense and PLAN wants multirole platform .
Considering Mig-29K , it looks like this plane could take-off with decent payload from Vikramaditya . As Liaoning has longer deck , purely technically speaking Mig-29K/Liaoning combination would be almost perfect (medium sized carrier with medium sized plane) .

On the other hand , I understand that China doesn't want to depend on any other country , so they got what they could and modified according to their own needs . But , to use full potential of J-15 , next Chinese carrier would have to have longer deck , or be fitted with catapults (J-15 would have to be modified in this case ) .

Great point!

But I think you don't have to worry too much. First, the Liaoning's main purpose is for training and gaining experience in operating aircraft carrier (everybody knows this and we don't need backup). Second, China will build more carrier, and the next carrier will be different from the Liaoning. This point is subject to debate because we haven't got any proof of the next Chinese carrier yet. Finally, we have J-31 in development. We are not sure what will be the fate of this bird yet but it is the size of the MiG-29. If it is adopted by the PLA (PLANAF), it will fit well on the Liaoning.

 

[thunderchief]

I'm sorry thunderchief, but you're blatantly wrong here.

You seem to be under the impression that the original Su-33 was designed only for air defence and not with strike capability in mind, and that some kind of inherent deficiency (either avionics or structural) makes the Su-33 unable to carry strike weapons?

Looks like you misunderstood what I have said . As any Flanker , Su-33 have enormous payload when taking-off from land . Avionics could be upgraded to carry strike weapons (in fact Russians did just that) . But , when taking-off from Kuznestov-class Su-33 cannot utilize full payload . Soviets of course knew about that . Why did they then proceed with the plane ? Because air defense was their primary concern .

So I have to ask you, why do you think Mig-29K can but J-15/Su-33 can't?

Mig-29K has smaller payload (carries less fuel and less weapons then J-15/Su-33) . When taking off from land , Flankers surely beat Mig-29K in this game . But , when taking off from carrier Mig-29K could carry around 3t (certified) from INS Vikramaditya (2xKh-35 , 2xR-73 , 1xfuel tank) . From Kuznetsov/Liaoning that would probably increase to 3.5 - 4 t . That is very close to theoretical MTOW .

On the other hand , by all accounts , J-15/Su-33 could carry similar payload (4-4.5 t) from Kuznetsov/Liaoning . Now , all you have is percentage game . Few big planes that you cannot utilize completely , or more smaller planes that you could utilize almost to the maximum .

 

[Blitzo]

Looks like you misunderstood what I have said . As any Flanker , Su-33 have enormous payload when taking-off from land . Avionics could be upgraded to carry strike weapons (in fact Russians did just that) . But , when taking-off from Kuznestov-class Su-33 cannot utilize full payload . Soviets of course knew about that . Why did they then proceed with the plane ? Because air defense was their primary concern .

Well your phrasing of the original statement made it sound like there was something fundamental about the Su-33 which made it unable to perform strike.

If you are saying Su-33 cannot take off from a ski jump with heavy payloads then that is a different matter.

But of course, as I've repeatedly said, there is no proof for whether Su-33 or any other fighter cannot or can take off from ski jumps with heavy payloads. No studies, nothing. However we do have statements from individuals from Russian aviation that say Su-33 was able to take off from ski jumps at full payload during trials aboard kuznetsov. And we do have ancillary suggestions that the ski jump was able to launch fighters with heavy payloads because the Ulyanovsk class was meant to retain its ski jump despite having waist catapults. If the soviets had catapult technology ready at the time, and if a ski jump couldn't launch fighters at MTOW, then it would have made more sense to replace the bow ski jump with catapults instead.

So at best, we are at a detente on the matter of fighters taking off from ski jumps with heavy payloads.

Mig-29K has smaller payload (carries less fuel and less weapons then J-15/Su-33) . When taking off from land , Flankers surely beat Mig-29K in this game . But , when taking off from carrier Mig-29K could carry around 3t (certified) from INS Vikramaditya (2xKh-35 , 2xR-73 , 1xfuel tank) . From Kuznetsov/Liaoning that would probably increase to 3.5 - 4 t . That is very close to theoretical MTOW .

On the other hand , by all accounts , J-15/Su-33 could carry similar payload (4-4.5 t) from Kuznetsov/Liaoning . Now , all you have is percentage game . Few big planes that you cannot utilize completely , or more smaller planes that you could utilize almost to the maximum .

I think you've overlooked the part where I said that Mig-29K being a smaller aircraft doesn't mean it is more strike orientated because being a smaller plane it also has smaller and weaker engines.

Besides, you're making a few massive assumptions with numbers pulled from thin air.

Why do you think mig-29K can suddenly take off with more payload from liaoning as opposed to the vikramditya?
What makes you say that the J-15 can only take off from liaoning with a payload of 4-4.5 tons?

If both Mig-29K and J-15 are taking off from the same ski jump under similar conditions, then their payload should be proportional to their thrust and MTOW, and thus, the Mig-29K isn't somehow magically more "weight efficient" than the J-15. That is to say, the thrust to weight ratios of the mig and the flanker are both relatively equal, and neither their structural design or aerodynamics give us any reason to believe the Mig-29K is more "weight efficient".

Basically what I'm saying is that if J-15 can only take off with X% of its max payload under Y conditions on a ski jump, then Mig-29K should only be able to take off with X% of its max payload under Y conditions as well. The two should scale relatively proportionally.