J-15 carrier fighter thread

[Deino]

is #111 batch 02?

Yes ... date given is the date I saw this ac for the first time (German system day/month/year)


Batch 01:

No. 100 = c/n 0101 - 22.4.14
No. 101 = c/n 0102 - 2.5.14
No. 102 = c/n 0103 - 2.12.13
No. 103 = c/n 0104 - 2.12.13
No. 104 = c/n 0105 - 19.5.14
No. 105 = c/n 0106 - 22.5.14
No. 106 = c/n 0107 - 20.3.15
No. 107 = c/n 0108 - 1.10.14
No. 108 = c/n 0109 - 1.10.14
No. 109 = c/n 0110 - 12.11.14


Batch 02:

No. 110 = c/n 0201 - 5.9.15
No. 111 = c/n 0202 - 12.10.15
No. 112 = c/n 0203 - 23.9.15
No. 113 = c/n 0204 - 3.9.15
No. 114 = c/n 0205 - 12.10.15
No. 115 = c/n 0206 - 12.6.16
No. 116 = c/n 0207 - 16.8.16
No. 117 = c/n 0208 - 16.5.16 ... reportedly lost / unconfirmed repaired
No. 118 = c/n 0209 - 31.11.16 ... reportedly lost
No. 119 = c/n 0210 - 30.11.16
No. 120 = c/n 0211 - 15.12.16
No. 121 = c/n 0211 - 7.6.17
No. 122 = c/n 0211 - 3.4.17

 

[Deino]

Interesting comparison

 

[SteelBird]

Interesting comparison

View attachment 40710

Almost identical with a few details difference.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Not sure if this is merely a case of scenario fulfillment ... but "cirr" from PDF posted an image of what could (note the emphasis on this word) be a new type of aircraft on CV-16. J-15B with AESA, perhaps?

I entertained the possibility of it being the JL-9, but it doesn't quite match up with that either.

 

[Deino]

And similar to my reply there: Why do You think it is a new type of aircraft ?! Even if indeed blurred I think it safe to assume that it is not a JL-9 and is most likely again one of the far-from accurate handling mock-ups we've already seen. However I'm eager to be surprised....

 

[SinoSoldier]

And similar to my reply there: Why do You think it is a new type of aircraft ?! Even if indeed blurred I think it safe to assume that it is not a JL-9 and is most likely again one of the far-from accurate handling mock-ups we've already seen. However I'm eager to be surprised....

The mockups had grey radomes and looked different. This doesn't look like a J-15 at all, although that could have been the result of photographic distortion.



Another odd thing is, why would the crew ask the TV team to blur a mockup or even a typical J-15?

 

[Deino]

The mockups had grey radomes and looked different. This doesn't look like a J-15 at all, although that could have been the result of photographic distortion.

View attachment 41284

Another odd thing is, why would the crew ask the TV team to blur a mockup or even a typical J-15?

o.k. good point ! But IMO different not very much, at least the JL-9 looks more different ... esp. since it lacks that red landing gear door, which is typical for a Flanker.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Another proof that CV18 or Type 002 AC is under construction or soon
An article published by the AVIC group on its journal suggests that the production of J-15 catapultable is underway.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[szbd]

Another proof that CV18 or Type 002 AC is under construction or soon
An article published by the AVIC group on its journal suggests that the production of J-15 catapultable is underway.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

it's about new front landing gear, but could be J16

 

[delft]

it's about new front landing gear, but could be J16

Not with a tail hook.