J-15 carrier fighter thread

[dingyibvs]

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

You have a point, I've read a few of them, but surprisingly (to me) I had trouble finding them just now. Here are a couple though:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"From the DRDO’s initial assumption that a Su-30 with stiffened wings could deploy a pair of BrahMos, to Sukhoi Design Bureau’s ill-tempered lack of cooperation in the platform modification exercise."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Air Force variant of BrahMos is also being prepared for test from the underbelly of a Sukhoi-MKI frontline fighter after earlier attempt to fix them under the wings was not successful."

I guess it depends on how closely you follow Indian developments, they were seriously exploring this option quite a while back in the late 2000's. Sukhoi wasn't interested in pipe dreams, and the Indian weren't very happy about it on their boards, but official reporting of it kind of just petered out it seems.

 

[Iron Man]

You have a point, I've read a few of them, but surprisingly (to me) I had trouble finding them just now. Here are a couple though:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"From the DRDO’s initial assumption that a Su-30 with stiffened wings could deploy a pair of BrahMos, to Sukhoi Design Bureau’s ill-tempered lack of cooperation in the platform modification exercise."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The Air Force variant of BrahMos is also being prepared for test from the underbelly of a Sukhoi-MKI frontline fighter after earlier attempt to fix them under the wings was not successful."

I guess it depends on how closely you follow Indian developments, they were seriously exploring this option quite a while back in the late 2000's. Sukhoi wasn't interested in pipe dreams, and the Indian weren't very happy about it on their boards, but official reporting of it kind of just petered out it seems.

I think "pipe dreams" is your personal interpretation of Sukhoi's lack of cooperation rather than a stated view coming directly from them. So the Su-30MKI was not initially able to carry the Brahmos under the wings, but we will never know if with Sukhoi's buy-in this plane subsequently could have. Regardless I have provided a fighter wing hardpoint weight limit of more than 2,200kg on the F-22, which I believe is actually smaller than the Su-30, and more than 1,900kg on the F-16;s wing hardpoint. These limits are not set by the actual limit of the hardpoints but by the evidence I can so far gather.

 

[dingyibvs]

Considering the RAF has inducted the MKI in good quantities, I don't see why Sukhoi wouldn't attempt it with Indian money. As for Sukhoi's reactions, there obviously aren't gonna be official sources, just like there often aren't when it comes to Chinese developments. Where did you get the 2200kg on the F-22 anyway?

I personally am of the opinion that it's not impossible for the Su-27 variants to carry some variant of the YJ-12. Where did the 2500kg figure come from anyway? The YJ-12 seems to be smaller than the Brahmos, whose air launched version is 2500kg, so with a larger plane like the Su-27, it's not implausible that it can be modified to be able to carry it. I think it's a bit unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[Iron Man]

Considering the RAF has inducted the MKI in good quantities, I don't see why Sukhoi wouldn't attempt it with Indian money. As for Sukhoi's reactions, there obviously aren't gonna be official sources, just like there often aren't when it comes to Chinese developments. Where did you get the 2200kg on the F-22 anyway?

I personally am of the opinion that it's not impossible for the Su-27 variants to carry some variant of the YJ-12. Where did the 2500kg figure come from anyway? The YJ-12 seems to be smaller than the Brahmos, whose air launched version is 2500kg, so with a larger plane like the Su-27, it's not implausible that it can be modified to be able to carry it. I think it's a bit unlikely, but not impossible.

A full 600gal drop tank weighs in total about 1,940kg (including the pylon) and each AMRAAM weighs 152kg, so 2 AMRAAMs and one drop tank anchored in at one wing hardpoint equals 2,244kg or thereabouts. The F-22 can carry four of these under its wings.

As for the weight of the YJ-12, the only source I have for it being 2,500kg is Wikipedia. Popsci says it weighs 1,500kg here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If 1,500kg is the actual weight of the missile then there is absolutely no discussion needed about whether or not a J-15 could carry this missile.

But since both of these are 'soft-core' sites I have no clue as to the true weight of this missile.

 

[FORBIN]

I have research in several sites i have YJ-12 to 2 - 2.5 t similar to Brahmos-A 2.5 t , Brahmos for Ships, TELs do 3 t.

 

[SinoSoldier]

"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.

I hope you understood my preceding post. Size is not a reliable indicator of an aircraft's hardpoint capacities; the J-16 and J-11BS may share very similar airframes but only one of the two is capable of carrying heavy air-to-surface weaponry. By the same token, General Dynamics engineers had to reinforce the F-16's airframe to build the strike-oriented F-16XL. Similar measures were taken to convert the F-15C to the E model. Note that not in one aforementioned case did one variant's size change in appreciable amounts relative to the other.

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.

Even if a notional relationship did exist between airframe size and hardpoint capacity, there is no frame of reference by which we can effectively conclude that the J-15 is sufficiently "large enough" for it to sport a YJ-12 on its outboard hardpoint. No numbers = no conclusion.

 

[FORBIN]

I hope you understood my preceding post. Size is not a reliable indicator of an aircraft's hardpoint capacities; the J-16 and J-11BS may share very similar airframes but only one of the two is capable of carrying heavy air-to-surface weaponry. By the same token, General Dynamics engineers had to reinforce the F-16's airframe to build the strike-oriented F-16XL. Similar measures were taken to convert the F-15C to the E model. Note that not in one aforementioned case did one variant's size change in appreciable amounts relative to the other.



Even if a notional relationship did exist between airframe size and hardpoint capacity, there is no frame of reference by which we can effectively conclude that the J-15 is sufficiently "large enough" for it to sport a YJ-12 on its outboard hardpoint. No numbers = no conclusion.

Flankers have a low payload for their mass in general 8 t for 33 - 38 t, if you see F-15E 11 for 36, F-35 9 for 30 and excellent Rafale, Typhoon 9 and 7.5 for 24 t a difference !
One exact reason why Flankers have an more low payload for their size than others ?

 

[FilipII]

Flankers have a low payload for their mass in general 8 t for 33 - 38 t, if you see F-15E 11 for 36, F-35 9 for 30 and excellent Rafale, Typhoon 9 and 7.5 for 24 t a difference !
One exact reason why Flankers have an more low payload for their size than others ?

They have more internal fuel for longer range as RuAF have less air tankers for in flight refueling than NATO.

 

[Iron Man]

I hope you understood my preceding post. Size is not a reliable indicator of an aircraft's hardpoint capacities; the J-16 and J-11BS may share very similar airframes but only one of the two is capable of carrying heavy air-to-surface weaponry. By the same token, General Dynamics engineers had to reinforce the F-16's airframe to build the strike-oriented F-16XL. Similar measures were taken to convert the F-15C to the E model. Note that not in one aforementioned case did one variant's size change in appreciable amounts relative to the other.

Even if a notional relationship did exist between airframe size and hardpoint capacity, there is no frame of reference by which we can effectively conclude that the J-15 is sufficiently "large enough" for it to sport a YJ-12 on its outboard hardpoint. No numbers = no conclusion.

"No conclusion" is acceptable to me, but your earlier claim was a much stronger assertion that it was impossible for the J-15 to carry the YJ-12 because it was too large. Regarding J-16 and J-11BS, you would have to demonstrate that the alleged incapability of the J-11BS to carry heavy air-to-surface missiles was a physical limitation rather than a software limitation before you can say this point has any relevance to this discussion.

 

[SinoSoldier]

"No conclusion" is acceptable to me, but your earlier claim was a much stronger assertion that it was impossible for the J-15 to carry the YJ-12 because it was too large. Regarding J-16 and J-11BS, you would have to demonstrate that the alleged incapability of the J-11BS to carry heavy air-to-surface missiles was a physical limitation rather than a software limitation before you can say this point has any relevance to this discussion.

Fair enough; nothing definitive can be said as of now. Nevertheless, the fact that no other Flanker in history has carried such a heavy load on its wing hardpoints still stirs up plenty of skepticism in me.