J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Quickie]

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.

Su-33 (Su-27K / T-10K) with 14.3° ramp and max. A/B :
* 345ft ground roll @ 61,730lb T-O weight
* 345ft ground roll @ 65,290lb T-O weight with 7kn WOD
* 640ft ground roll @ 70,990lb T-O weight with 15kn WOD

Looks like the Su-33 can take off at MTOW from the ramp with option 3.

Also, the 61,730lb T-O weight in Option 1 isn't too far off from MTOW.

 

[Richard Santos]

Su-33 (Su-27K / T-10K) with 14.3° ramp and max. A/B :
* 345ft ground roll @ 61,730lb T-O weight
* 345ft ground roll @ 65,290lb T-O weight with 7kn WOD
* 640ft ground roll @ 70,990lb T-O weight with 15kn WOD

Looks like the Su-33 can take off at MTOW from the ramp with option 3.

Also, the 61,730lb T-O weight in Option 1 isn't too far off from MTOW.

It's 5 tons less, which represent something like either half of the internal fuel load or half of the ordinance load.

However, it appears a WOD of 7 knots adds 2 tons to the take off weight. Which makes one wonder what happens if the ship is steaming at 30 knots

 

[Quickie]

It's 5 tons less, which represent something like either half of the internal fuel load or half of the ordinance load.

However, it appears a WOD of 7 knots adds 2 tons to the take off weight. Which makes one wonder what happens if the ship is steaming at 30 knots

It's about 4 ton (4.2 to be exact) less.

It's considered to be standard fuel/weapon load according to the link posted previously.

i.e.
Su-33 (Su-27K / T-10K) T-O weights :

* with standard internal fuel, 8 x R-27E, 4 x R-73 : 61,730 lb / 28,000 kg

 

[Blitzo]

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.

Lack of pictures and lack of videos does not equal to inability to do so.

For PLA watchers that is especially much the case.


So in other words, yourself and everyone else have nothing, apart from "there are no photos and videos" and "it looks like it can't take off with a heavy load". That evidence is not particularly convincing.

 

[hkbc]

I don't understand the fixation with MTOW, unless the J-15's primary use is going to be as a bomb truck for deep interdiction what's the issue?

As a fleet defence fighter it can loft enough AAMs because they don't weigh a lot and one should be able to swap out some of the AAMs for ASMs for a naval strike use case without picking up a lot more weight, which should allow it to fly with a full tank.

A YJ-83 is about 800kg a PL-9 is 120kg and a PL-12 200kg so a pair of each comes to less than 2300kg adding another pair of YJ-83 still only takes it to 3900kg or so. 4 ASMs and 4 AAMs is pretty much part of the course can't image a MN Rafale carrying any more and that flys off a 'proper' carrier with nuclear propulsion and cats!

So as far as I can make out a J-15 taking off from a ski-ramp has taking out enemy planes and ships covered what it can't do is to fly deep into hostile territory and drop lots of bombs, but then I am not sure when or if the Chinese navy will need to do those types of missions, it's not like China's geared up for expeditionary warfare on the other side of the world, can't really see them parking the liaoning in the med and bombing ISIS any time soon.

Basically you don't need "bomb trucks" to secure SLOCs, enforce a blockade or preventing the 21st century equivalent of the opium wars.

Now the fact that they're planning bigger carriers with catapults instead of ski-ramps so those J-15s can be "bomb trucks" should probably be a worry or may be they just need them for some decent AEW/C!

 

[Air Force Brat]

It's 5 tons less, which represent something like either half of the internal fuel load or half of the ordinance load.

However, it appears a WOD of 7 knots adds 2 tons to the take off weight. Which makes one wonder what happens if the ship is steaming at 30 knots

If in fact the Kuz were capable of 30 knots??? probably depending on conditions, I would estimate the Kuz at around 25 knots, but that's 25 knots subtracted from "flying speed which would likely be from 130 to 155 knots indicated airspeed at sea level..

I am extremely skeptical of that 7 knots WOD adding an additional 4000lbs of lift to the SU-33/J-15?? if those take-off performance numbers were indeed accurate, you would be seeing fully loaded SU-33s departing the Admiral Kuz, as the recent Syria Ops were a "show of force", half loaded airplanes gentlemen, are NOT a show of force for any Navy!

To prove me wrong, all you would need do is show fully loaded Flankers J-15's or SU-33's departing the Ramp of Liaoning or Admiral Kuz, flying a full range combat mission, and returning to the ship under their own power. We did not see that in Syria, believe whatever you want???

But then your first mistake was stating that BD made a mistake,,,,, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Admiral Kuz is capable of UnRep.

In every court of law of the land or sea, on every continent, you MUST present evidence! since you have none, you have NO case!

 

[Air Force Brat]

I don't understand the fixation with MTOW, unless the J-15's primary use is going to be as a bomb truck for deep interdiction what's the issue?

As a fleet defence fighter it can loft enough AAMs because they don't weigh a lot and one should be able to swap out some of the AAMs for ASMs for a naval strike use case without picking up a lot more weight, which should allow it to fly with a full tank.

A YJ-83 is about 800kg a PL-9 is 120kg and a PL-12 200kg so a pair of each comes to less than 2300kg adding another pair of YJ-83 still only takes it to 3900kg or so. 4 ASMs and 4 AAMs is pretty much part of the course can't image a MN Rafale carrying any more and that flys off a 'proper' carrier with nuclear propulsion and cats!

So as far as I can make out a J-15 taking off from a ski-ramp has taking out enemy planes and ships covered what it can't do is to fly deep into hostile territory and drop lots of bombs, but then I am not sure when or if the Chinese navy will need to do those types of missions, it's not like China's geared up for expeditionary warfare on the other side of the world, can't really see them parking the liaoning in the med and bombing ISIS any time soon.

Basically you don't need "bomb trucks" to secure SLOCs, enforce a blockade or preventing the 21st century equivalent of the opium wars.

Now the fact that they're planning bigger carriers with catapults instead of ski-ramps so those J-15s can be "bomb trucks" should probably be a worry or may be they just need them for some decent AEW/C!

You've actually made my point, the J-15 is billed as a multi-role fighter, capable of reaching out and "touching someone",,, if it were fully combat capable off the ramp, there would be no need to develop Steam or Emals Cats to launch it.

I suggest we "wait and see", if those pictures pop up, post them, please!

 

[dingyibvs]

If in fact the Kuz were capable of 30 knots??? probably depending on conditions, I would estimate the Kuz at around 25 knots, but that's 25 knots subtracted from "flying speed which would likely be from 130 to 155 knots indicated airspeed at sea level..

I am extremely skeptical of that 7 knots WOD adding an additional 4000lbs of lift to the SU-33/J-15?? if those take-off performance numbers were indeed accurate, you would be seeing fully loaded SU-33s departing the Admiral Kuz, as the recent Syria Ops were a "show of force", half loaded airplanes gentlemen, are NOT a show of force for any Navy!

To prove me wrong, all you would need do is show fully loaded Flankers J-15's or SU-33's departing the Ramp of Liaoning or Admiral Kuz, flying a full range combat mission, and returning to the ship under their own power. We did not see that in Syria, believe whatever you want???

But then your first mistake was stating that BD made a mistake,,,,, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Admiral Kuz is capable of UnRep.

In every court of law of the land or sea, on every continent, you MUST present evidence! since you have none, you have NO case!

But you didn't present any evidence, you only presented an absence of evidence, which as others have pointed out, is not evidence of absence.

 

[Intrepid]

But you didn't present any evidence, you only presented an absence of evidence, which as others have pointed out, is not evidence of absence.

This is true. But it is true for both sides. We have only the laws of physics, no other proof. And we know that the Chinese do not want to stay with the unsupported take-off procedure. The Soviet Union did not want it either. The British did not want it.

 

[dingyibvs]

This is true. But it is true for both sides. We have only the laws of physics, no other proof. And we know that the Chinese do not want to stay with the unsupported take-off procedure. The Soviet Union did not want it either. The British did not want it.

Clearly catapults are superior, nobody's arguing that, but that's not the topic at hand.