J-15 carrier fighter thread

[SinoSoldier]

So you don't actually know what the maximum payload on a wing hardpoint for a Flanker-sized fighter is. I don't either, but I'm up front about it. I certainly don't outright exclude the possibility that a Flanker-sized fighter wing can carry a 2,500kg load. I know that even F-16s routinely carry the standard US 600-gallon drop tank on the nearest wing hardpoints that including fuel, pylon and dry weight comes to >1,900kg. I can only assume an F-15, Su-33, or J-15 wing could carry even more weight.

No, I never claimed to know what the max wing hardpoint payload is, but I don't need to. No Flanker or J-11X has ever carried anywhere near a 2500-kg load on a wing hardpoint, so by virtue of retrospective inference it can be claimed, with a high degree of confidence, that the J-15 would be no different.

Bringing up the F-16 as a rebuttal isn't very useful here, since the hardpoint capacity varies between different models of fighters (due to different reinforcing requirements for the airframe). For instance, a load that is managed by a J-16 hardpoint may not be tolerated by an equivalent hardpoint on a J-11BS, despite the two aircraft being very similar in dimensions and weight.

Of course, dimensional restraints have to be considered as well.

Both these statements here constitute your personal opinion. There is no way you can argue around this point, regardless of how emphatic you are about it. Even if we have only seen it so far on the H-6, this does not constitute an argument that only the H-6 is able to carry this missile.

My point with the H-6 wasn't to argue that it would be the only platform to sport the YJ-12. I fully expect the J-15S (and perhaps the J-16) to bear the weapon on its centerline hardpoint. I was merely reiterating the observation that, thus far, the missile has been seen aboard solely the H-6.

 

[Iron Man]

Bringing up the F-16 as a rebuttal isn't very useful here, since the hardpoint capacity varies between different models of fighters (due to different reinforcing requirements for the airframe). For instance, a load that is managed by a J-16 hardpoint may not be tolerated by an equivalent hardpoint on a J-11BS, despite the two aircraft being very similar in dimensions and weight.

Well you were the one who first used the term "Flanker-sized" fighter which by implication indicates you think that similarly sized fighters have similarly sized wing hardpoint capacities. And so to think that a larger fighter's wing hardpoints have LESS capacity than a smaller fighter's wing hardpoints is a totally fantastical claim to swallow. So me bringing an F-16's near wing hardpoint maximum load which is clearly in excess of 1,900kg is definitely appropriate to this discussion.

 

[Iron Man]

I should also add that all 4 wing hardpoints on an F-22, both inner and outer, have a weight capacity in excess of 2,200kg when you include 2 AMRAAMs with each 600-gal drop tank:

 

[SinoSoldier]

Well you were the one who first used the term "Flanker-sized" fighter which by implication indicates you think that similarly sized fighters have similarly sized wing hardpoint capacities. And so to think that a larger fighter's wing hardpoints have LESS capacity than a smaller fighter's wing hardpoints is a totally fantastical claim to swallow. So me bringing an F-16's near wing hardpoint maximum load which is clearly in excess of 1,900kg is definitely appropriate to this discussion.

"Flanker-sized" was probably not the best descriptor for me to use, but the other points still stand. There is nothing to suggest that a correlation exists between the mere size of an aircraft and its hardpoint capacity. As stated before, such a parameter rests on the structural reinforcements that are characteristic of that airframe/wing, which varies from aircraft to aircraft. So, unless there is a Flanker-type strike aircraft can also carry a full 600-gal fuel tank (or equivalent) on its proximal wing hardpoint, there is no evidence that a J-15 could carry a YJ-12 on that position.

 

[Iron Man]

"Flanker-sized" was probably not the best descriptor for me to use, but the other points still stand.

"Flanker-sized" was an entirely appropriate descriptor for you to use, which is why you used it. Your current substitution of the term "Flanker-type" is clearly an evolution forced in by your current line of argumentation rather than a correction of an earlier misspeak.

There is nothing to suggest that a correlation exists between the mere size of an aircraft and its hardpoint capacity. As stated before, such a parameter rests on the structural reinforcements that are characteristic of that airframe/wing, which varies from aircraft to aircraft.

Nothing except perhaps common sense. Structural reinforcements may indeed vary from aircraft to aircraft, but the larger the aircraft the more wing there will be and the more structural reinforcement there will be to support the larger wing. This is the exact reason a large plane like the H-6 can easily carry the YJ-12 on even its furthest wing hardpoints.

So, unless there is a Flanker-type strike aircraft can also carry a full 600-gal fuel tank (or equivalent) on its proximal wing hardpoint, there is no evidence that a J-15 could carry a YJ-12 on that position.

LOL ok then

 

[Intrepid]

No, I never claimed to know what the max wing hardpoint payload is, but I don't need to. No Flanker or J-11X has ever carried anywhere near a 2500-kg load on a wing hardpoint, so by virtue of retrospective inference it can be claimed, with a high degree of confidence, that the J-15 would be no different.

What about arrested deck landings with such a weapon under the wing?

 

[Blitzo]

What about arrested deck landings with such a weapon under the wing?

Carrier based fighter aircraft generally try to avoid doing arrested landings with large amounts of loaded ordnance, as I'm sure you know.

For any kind of heavy payload that is not used during a mission and which may present dangers (such as clearance issues or just being too heavy for a successful recovery and/or bolter to occur) then that payload will most likely have to be jettisoned before coming in for recovery.

 

[Intrepid]

Carrier based fighter aircraft generally try to avoid doing arrested landings with large amounts of loaded ordnance, as I'm sure you know.

For any kind of heavy payload that is not used during a mission and which may present dangers (such as clearance issues or just being too heavy for a successful recovery and/or bolter to occur) then that payload will most likely have to be jettisoned before coming in for recovery.

I remember for example the Tomcat could theoretically carry six Phoenix missiles, but had never more than one or two loaded except for special photo shoutings. It was an expensive weapon and should not jettisoned before landing.

 

[dingyibvs]

No idea if the J-15 could or could be modified to carry a 2.5ton load, but it's well known that the Russians laughed at the idea of modifying the MKI to carry Brahmos under wings.

 

[Iron Man]

No idea if the J-15 could or could be modified to carry a 2.5ton load, but it's well known that the Russians laughed at the idea of modifying the MKI to carry Brahmos under wings.

Really? Can you supply an article? If it's well known it should be all over the place.