J-15 carrier fighter thread

[plawolf]

How long does it take to load them to an aircraft? And what if there are aircraft parked on the bow?

Well that's down to planning and training isn't it?

If you are flying long range combat missions with minimal safety margin fuel reserves, shouldn't you have a plane or two fuelled up and configured for tanker duty ready to go?

Aircraft already on the bow can be moved off pretty quickly. I would think you need the longer run up for such a heavy load, so the tanker reserve plane should be parked at the rear of the carrier.

When needed, it can quickly taxi to the second launch position at the waist, at the same time any plane on the port bow launch position can taxi off to clear the deck to launch.

For a well drilled deck crew, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to do that.

For the Russians, it was maybe planning (no reserve plane in tanker config ready to go); training (couldn't get the tanker launched quickly enough); command (skipper made a bad call and was hoping for the best rather than planning for the worst) or a combination of all 3 that led to the loss of the Mig.

But that's why you need to invest in training and regularly run realistic training drills in peacetime so you can deliver in war time.

By all accounts, the Russians were either lax or sparce with their peacetime training (mostly down to lack of budget, maybe also excess Vodka j/k), which is why they paid a heavy price on deployment.

If anything, the Russia experience reinforces the need for higher intensity, realistic training for the PLAN, not less.

Humans are emotional and affected by nerves. You mitigate that with training and experience.

You can land on a carrier 100 times near a friendly coast, but it will still feel different when you do it the first time in unfamiliar waters far from home. The knowledge that there is no safety net anymore will affect pilots and crews.

Hopefully it will be very little, in which case everyone will easily adapt. But in the unlikely and rare case where someone cracks under the added pressure, its better to find that out during peacetime training rather than war. And lessons and countermeasures can be put in place for the future.

 

[Intrepid]

If you are flying long range combat missions with minimal safety margin fuel reserves, shouldn't you have a plane or two fuelled up and configured for tanker duty ready to go?

Aircraft already on the bow can be moved off pretty quickly.

I believe, it is not so easy to clear the bow in a few minutes.

And with only the fighter and attack component on a smaller than usual carrier deck at the moment it is not yet neccessary to train all aspects for the larger carrier decks in the future.

That is my opinion. You have an other one.

 

[plawolf]

I believe, it is not so easy to clear the bow in a few minutes.

And with only the fighter and attack component on a smaller than usual carrier deck at the moment it is not yet neccessary to train all aspects for the larger carrier decks in the future.

That is my opinion. You have an other one.

Again, a question of training and experience.

A skipper should know to the second how long it should take to clear the bow and make ready to launch a tanker bird.

If it would take too long to taxi the alert fighter off the bow, launch it instead, and have it head directly for a nearby land base so it's not also put at risk.

As for the smaller and larger deck, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't train for what you might have X years down the line, you train to make the best use of what you have now.

It's not like the Kuz is a new carrier. The Russians should have had plenty to time to work out how to use her properly. So I honestly cannot understand how you could suggest they don't need to have learnt how to use her in any and all configurations for all missions and reasonable contingencies.

 

[abc123]

As for the Russian carrier losses, well that Mig loss in particular seems just plain silly and entirely avoidable.

For one, that Mig was well within range of alternative land bases, so could have diverted, so it would have been little different to the Liaoning operating near the Chinese coast.

For another, it seems like the Russian training was just not up to sniff to allow such an embarrassment to happen.

The captain should know to the minute how long it should take his crew to un-fowl the arrest wires and/or replace parts of it that were damaged.

If it left the Mig little safety margin, a second plane with a full tank and drop tanks with buddy refuelling pod should have been launched to top up the Mig.

If repairs were running long overdue, or looked like it might, the two planes should have been diverted to a nearby land base while they sort it out.

Agreed.

 

[Intrepid]

You don't train for what you might have X years down the line, you train to make the best use of what you have now.

The long-term plan in view, which the Chinese obviously pursue, I have a different meaning.

As for the smaller and larger deck, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

On a "supercarrier" is enough room for tankers, AEW/C-aircraft, QRA and other special-duty-components of an air wing with other flying cycles than the "normal" fighters and attack aircraft (remember: you have to respott the deck after every departure- or recovery-phase). Even on smaller US-Navy- or Royal-Navy-carriers in the past there were extra spots on the deck, where such special-duty-aircraft were normaly parked (and not pushing them for and aft every time without bringing them into the air).

Until now I couldn't recognize such "special-duty aircraft" except one or two helicopters on Liaoning. The helicopters are easier to handle.

By the way: I expect the Chinese to paint new markings on Liaonings deck after the first "big exercises".

 

[kriss]

@Jeff Head

Xu Yongling did say the pilot saved the aircraft in an interview. There is some ambiguity in his words but the story didn't come out of nowhere.

ps: reply button really doesn't like chrome

 

[SanWenYu]

ps: reply button really doesn't like chrome

I ran into same issue with Chrome. Others also reported similar problems with this browser. Firefox seems to be working fine for me.

 

[Deino]

 

[Richard Santos]

Which is why they should have sent up a second bird with a buddy pod to top it up and give everyone more time and options.

Russia claims the Mig-29 in question was lost to engine trouble, which would not have been helped by extra fuel.

In any case, they lost another su-33 to missing landing wire about e weeks later.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Russia claims the Mig-29 in question was lost to engine trouble, which would not have been helped by extra fuel.

In any case, they lost another su-33 to missing landing wire about e weeks later.

If you read the whole report, the cable was fouled and as the pilot waited for them to clear the deck, he had a double flame out do to fuel exhaustion! those are the facts, and that is what Wolfie was talking about, a tanker would have saved the day, and the aircraft. The SU-33 snagged the cable off angle and cause it to sever, rolling into the drink.

We all work very hard to get it right here the first time.