Yes. Undoubtedly j15 launched off the bow from the waist position can take off with much heavier load. But there is only one long launch run, which limits how fast a strike can assemble, and its length and position put restrictions on deck operation, while making simultaneous launch and recovery impossible.
J-15 carrier fighter thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Intrepid
Major
It is limited to stunts. It is no professional operation with a safe margin to the stallspeed.
Intrepid
Major
Do you know the weight of the aircraft?
So, what evidence do you have to base that on apart from eyeballing it?
To make as ambitious of a claim as you are making or as Richard Santos has made, eyeballing isn't good enough.
As I wrote before, "please have a go at trying to deduce what the maximum take off weight of a J-15 from a Kuznetsov pattern carrier is, under various headwind conditions, and describe it in terms of the aircraft's internal fuel load and external payload."
You know, if that's just the position you have because you want to believe it, that's fine. But please come out and admit that the evidence and logic behind such a position is thin and poor, instead of portraying the situation like there is somehow overwhelming evidence for your position.
I followed a course on V/STOL aircraft at Delft University just more than forty years ago and one lecture was devoted to the ski ramp. The lecturer said that if we could depend on the wind always to be from the same direction we would use ski ramps on every airfield.
I do not know what I learned there and what I picked up later.
If you leave the ski ramp at near maximum angle of attack your aircraft will decelerate and drop into the drink. An twin engine aircraft must be able to fly off with engine failure when launched by cat and the same goes for launch by ski ramp. As you have never seen a heavily loaded Su-33 or J-15 take off with engine failure eye balling the pictures will tell you nothing.
In case of engine failure the aircraft will be slow when leaving the ramp, drop all external ordnance and then fly a semi ballistic flight path at low angle of attack and accelerating all the time with a minimum altitude at about deck level. We have seen an article in Russian(?) which showed a figure with several possible flight paths at several take off weights.
I do not know what I learned there and what I picked up later.If you leave the ski ramp at near maximum angle of attack your aircraft will decelerate and drop into the drink. An twin engine aircraft must be able to fly off with engine failure when launched by cat and the same goes for launch by ski ramp. As you have never seen a heavily loaded Su-33 or J-15 take off with engine failure eye balling the pictures will tell you nothing.
In case of engine failure the aircraft will be slow when leaving the ramp, drop all external ordnance and then fly a semi ballistic flight path at low angle of attack and accelerating all the time with a minimum altitude at about deck level. We have seen an article in Russian(?) which showed a figure with several possible flight paths at several take off weights.
Hyperwarp
Captain
I followed a course on V/STOL aircraft at Delft University just more than forty years ago and one lecture was devoted to the ski ramp. The lecturer said that if we could depend on the wind always to be from the same direction we would use ski ramps on every airfield.
If you leave the ski ramp at near maximum angle of attack your aircraft will decelerate and drop into the drink. An twin engine aircraft must be able to fly off with engine failure when launched by cat and the same goes for launch by ski ramp. As you have never seen a heavily loaded Su-33 or J-15 take off with engine failure eye balling the pictures will tell you nothing.
In case of engine failure the aircraft will be slow when leaving the ramp, drop all external ordnance and then fly a semi ballistic flight path at low angle of attack and accelerating all the time with a minimum altitude at about deck level. We have seen an article in Russian(?) which showed a figure with several possible flight paths at several take off weights.
Are you referring to these? (I have no idea what they say)
From this forum -
No one here can or will answer your question as to MTOW, that's just not disseminated to the outside world. We have lots and lots of pictures of lightly loaded J-15s/SU-33's coming off the ramp, but not one picture of a fully loaded SU-33 or J-15 coming off a ramp...
Those in the free world who have the option of Catapults or Ramps, only fly STOVL aircraft off of ramps, no standard configuration aircraft off of ramps,,, you might bring up the Indians with their Mig-29Ks but there again, find us some full combat load-outs coming off that ramp.
The Russians recently used their SU-33s off the Kuz, but again, no fully loaded Flankers flew off that ramp! The Flankers will carry an extraordinary external load from a land base, with full fuel, but NOT off the ramp, sorry.
Oh, and those dips after launch, lots of carrier aircraft do the dip, even off the cat?? watch Jimmy Dolittle's crew fly those fully fueled B-25s of the Hornet, that will scare the "Krap" right out of you, so that's not a viable argument against the ramp and a load, though that does indicate a very low energy launch, NO MARGIN for error.
Intrepid
Major
They use only the long 195-meters-take-off-path:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is no evidence that Flankers can't take off from the Kuz at MTOW with proper headwind. Your claims remind me of BD's recent mistake in thinking the Kuz couldn't do UNREP because he hasn't seen them doing it until Mr Santos reminded us that it was simply a matter of doctrine, not capability, that results in a rarity of pictures of the Soviet Navy conducting UNREP.